JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal from Jail on behalf of the accused-appellant Surendra Singh is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated December 21, 1978, whereby the accused-appellant Surendra Singh was convicted under section 302 and 380 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C. and to five years rigorous imprisonment under section 380 I.P.C. 2. Vide proceedings dated May 10, 1979 Shri A.K. Gupta was appointed amicus curiae to prosecute the appeal of the accused appellant. 3. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the deceased Satish Chand Sarin was resident of Delhi and was employed as Sales Representative in the Delhi Cloth Mills. On 7-1-78, he came to Jaipur in connection with his official tour and stayed in the dormitory of the Ashoka Hotel situated near Railway Station, Jaipur. The prosecution case is that the accused-appellant Surendra Singh who is resident of Kishan Ganj, District Kota also came and stayed in Room No. 2 of Ashoka Hotel. This room No. 1 is near dormitory. It is contended that the accused developed acquaintance with Sarin and both of them were seen taking tea together in the morning of 9-1-1978. On 11th January 1978 at about 1 P.M., Ratan Lal P.W. 19, Manager of the Ashoka Hotel, Jaipur received a telephonic message from a person who introduced himself as C.I.D. Inspector. He told Ratan Lal that the Sales Representative Sarin staying in the dormitory has been murdered. Ratan Lal went in the dormitory and found it locked. He then contacted Police Station, Sadar, on telephone. The police arrived and entered the dormitory by breaking open the lock. The dead-body of Sarin was found lying with blood spread around. The police registered a case and started investigation. The autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. N.K. Sharma P.W. 20 on January 12, 1978. In the opinion of the Medical Officer the cause of death was coma due to fracture of skull and injury to brain. In the evening of January 10, 1978, the accused was arrested near Sanganeri Gate in suspicious circumstances. On his personal search being taken at the time of his arrest, one gold ring (Ex. 1), one wrist watch (Ex. In the opinion of the Medical Officer the cause of death was coma due to fracture of skull and injury to brain. In the evening of January 10, 1978, the accused was arrested near Sanganeri Gate in suspicious circumstances. On his personal search being taken at the time of his arrest, one gold ring (Ex. 1), one wrist watch (Ex. 2) and a chit of paper with digits 73874 written on it was found in his possession. On information being furnished by the accused on January 12, 1978, while in police custody, a knife (Ex. 2) and hammer (Ex 3) were recovered from a room of Raj-Deep Hotel situated in Bapu Bazar, Jaipur. The accused was staying in this hotel after leaving Ashoka Hotel. In the room, in which the accused was staying, one pent Ex. 4 and one Jerkin (Ex. 5) stained with blood were found. All these articles were seized and sealed. In the room, a bill (Ex. 11) issued by the Ashoka Hotel was also found. The cloths of the deceased-victim were also seized and sealed. On chemical analysis the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and later on the Serologist, Calcutta, the clothes of the accused and knife (Ex. 2) were found stained with human blood. In the test identification parade conducted on January 13, 1978, in the Central Jail, he was correctly identified by Ratan Lal, Norat Mal and Kishan Lal. Gold ring (Ex. 1) was also correctly identified to be of Sarin by Jwala Prasad, P.W. 2. Both these test identification parades were conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, Shri O.P. Sharma P.W. 10. During investigation it was revealed that the accused has procured hammer (Ex. 3) from Kalian Khan, P.W. 22, in Shahabad, District Kota. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was submitted in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, who committed the accused to the court of Sessions. Charges u/s 302 and 380 I.P.C. were framed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. He contended that the entire prosecution story was false and fabricated. He also admitted that he stayed in the Ashoka Hotel and later on in Raj-Deep Hotel. He further admitted that at the time of his arrest one gold ring was recovered from him which he was wearing at that time but denied that the gold ring Ex. He contended that the entire prosecution story was false and fabricated. He also admitted that he stayed in the Ashoka Hotel and later on in Raj-Deep Hotel. He further admitted that at the time of his arrest one gold ring was recovered from him which he was wearing at that time but denied that the gold ring Ex. 1 was the same which he was wearing at the time of his arrest. 4. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses and filed some documents in support of the case. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the accused appellant that the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt home to the accused. It was also contended that the prosecution has not succeeded in linking the accused with the offence committed. It was also contended that the entire prosecution story is a piece of fabrication. It was also contended that the accused appellant was arrested on January 11, 1978 near Sanganeri Gate when there his no sufficient evidence available with the prosecution. It was also contended that the key of the dormitory which is alleged to have been recovered from the person of the accused appellant was not sealed at the time when it was seized; and as such, there was every possibility of opening the dormitory or changing the key. It was also contended that the evidence of last seen is highly unsatisfactory and with no stretch of imagination it could be contended that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond all shadow of doubt that it was the accused appellant alone who commit murder of Sarin and no one else. 6. On behalf of the prosecution it was contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and that there is enough evidence on record to come to the conclusion that it was the accused alone who had committed the murder of Sarin. 7. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor have been considered and the record of the case has been carefully perused. 8. P.W. 1. Harish Chandra stated that the deceased Satish Chandra Sarin was his younger brother. The deceased used to wear ring in his hand. He used to put on watch also. He identified the photographs of the deceased sarin. 8. P.W. 1. Harish Chandra stated that the deceased Satish Chandra Sarin was his younger brother. The deceased used to wear ring in his hand. He used to put on watch also. He identified the photographs of the deceased sarin. On January 11, 1978 he received a message from Jaipur that Sarin has been murdered. He, therefore, reached Jaipur and went to Ashoka Hotel and identified the deceaseds body. 9. P.W. 2 Jwala Prasad stated that he was a resident of Delhi and know the deceased Sarin as he and the deceased Sarin used to work in the came department in the Delhi Cloth Mills. Shri Satish Chandra used to put on a watch in his hand and also used to wear a ring in his finger. The ring Ex. 2 is the same which the deceased used to wear. He also identified Ex. 1 before the Magistrate during the identification parade P.W. 3 Brij Bhushan stated that he is employed as Assistant Accountant in the Delhi Cloth Mills and as such, he knew the deceased for conducting tour in Rajasthan. This fact is known to him as he is the Accountant. 10. P.W. 4, Narayan Das stated that on 11-1-1978 he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Police thana sadar. That day he received a telephone message at 2.15 P.M. from the proprietor, of the Ashok Hotel, Ratan Lal Jain, that he has been informed by an unknown person that some sales man who was staying in the Hotel has been murdered, Ratan Lal further told him that the Dormitory in which Sarin was staying is locked from out side and he has seen from a hole in the door that the goods in the room was lying here and there and there was a pool of blood. He also informed about the name of the deceased as Satish Chand Sarin. On receiving information from Ratan Lal Jain, the Sub-Inspector recorded the report in the Roz-Namcha at No. 678. He than went to Ashoka Hotel accompanied by the Head Constable and L.C. Vijay Singh. The report in the Roz-Namcha is Ex. P. 6. when he reached Ashoka Hotel he found that the dormitory was locked. He then saw through the hole in the door that the goods were lying scattered and there was blood all around the dead-body of a person. The report in the Roz-Namcha is Ex. P. 6. when he reached Ashoka Hotel he found that the dormitory was locked. He then saw through the hole in the door that the goods were lying scattered and there was blood all around the dead-body of a person. He then called for the register which is maintained for the visitors to the hotel. Then the lock was broken open and the room opened. Panchayat-nama Ex. P. 7 was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. Panchanama was written by the Head Constable Ram go pal and signed by the Sub-Inspector at places A to B and C to D. He then prepared the report Ex. P. 8.Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the S.H.O. Shri Sujan Singh. 11. P.W. 5 Kishan Chand stated that he was called as a motbir by the police. He has a cloth shop in Bapu Bazar. The accused Surendra Singh was arrested by the police. Surendra Sing was staying in the hotel known as Raj Deep situated in Bapu Bazar. The accused took the party to room No. 201. The room was locked. Accused Surendra Singh opened the lock with key which he had. The accused look out the knife Ex. 2 and presented to the police. There was an attach in the room. The accused opened the attach and produced hammer Ex. 3 before the police. These two articles were seized by the police vide Ex. P. 9. Ex. P. 9 bears the signature of the witness at places A to B. These two articles were sealed. The accused also produced a pent and a jerkin. These were also seized by the police by Ex.P. 10 and sealed. At the time of the seizure, jerkin Ex. 5 had blood stains. He does not remember whether the pents were also blood stained or not. The accused also produced bill Ex.P. 11. On being cross examined the witness stated that the accused had taken out the key from the pockets of his pent. The accused had taken out only one key from his pent when he was out side the room. He does not remember whether the police seized the key or not. The lock which was on the room belonged to the hotel. On the knife which was recovered, there were one or two marks of blood. He identified knife Ex. 2. The accused had taken out only one key from his pent when he was out side the room. He does not remember whether the police seized the key or not. The lock which was on the room belonged to the hotel. On the knife which was recovered, there were one or two marks of blood. He identified knife Ex. 2. The witness denied that he is a professional surety in the criminal cases in the courts. He however, admitted that he had given surety in one case at the request of Shri Sajjan Raj Surana, Advocate, who is the counsel for the accused Surendra Singh. On cross examination he admitted that he had given two sureties in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, and one surety in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 5. He later on stated that he had given surety in two or three cases. The witness denied that he is a professional in giving sureties in criminal cases. 12. P.W. 6 Milap Chand stated that he runs a shop of motor parts. There is a telephone at his shop; the telephone No. is 65287. The accused had come to his shop between 12 noon and 1 P.M. and stated that he is a C.I.D. inspector and he wanted to make a telephone call. He, therefore, allowed the accused to use the telephone. 13. P.W. 7 Laxman Das stated that he has a watch shop on the M.I. Road. On 9.1.78, the accused came to his shop at about 12 noon and gave him a wrist watch stating that his glass has been broken and he also provided a chain. He identified watch Ex. 6. 14. P.W. 8 Kailash Chand stated that he is employed as a cleaner in the Ashoka Hotel since 1977. He had cleaned the dormitory of the Ashoka Hotel at about 7 or 7.30 A.M on January 9, 1978. When he cleaned the room the person staying in the dormitory was present. He identified the photo of the accused. On January 10, 1978 when he again went to clean the room he found the room locked and as such could not clean the room. On January 11, 1978 when he went to the room it was again found locked and as such, could not clean it. He identified the photo of the accused. On January 10, 1978 when he again went to clean the room he found the room locked and as such could not clean the room. On January 11, 1978 when he went to the room it was again found locked and as such, could not clean it. On being cross examined, he stated that he comes to the hotel in the morning and remains on duty till 12 noon and then again comes on duty at 3 p.m. and continues on duty upto 8 P:M. The room of the dormitory is closed; you cannot see what is inside of it. If for some reason a particular room is not cleaned on a particular day then a report has to be made to the Manager of the hotel. He also informed the manager regarding the non-cleaning of the dormitory. The rooms are usually locked by the person who stays in the room, but if the person who stays has not brought a lock then the hotel provides a lock to him. The hotel maintains two keys one is kept by the customers and the other is kept by the hotel management. 15. P.W. 9, Kishan Lal stated that he has been working as a waiter in the Ashoka Hotel for the last two three years. He had served tea to the person staying in the dormitory on 9.1.78, to whom he recognised as Sarin by looking at the photographs Ex. 1 to Ex. 4. At the time when he served the tea the accused was sitting with the deceased. The accused was also staying in the hotel in Room No. 2. The accused was staying in the hotel since January 5, 1978 and stayed upto 9th January 1978. He left the hotel on January 9, 1978 at about 10 or 11 A.M. After January 9, 1978 the witnesses did not see the person who was staying in the dormitory and whenever he went to the dormitory he found the dormitory closed. On January 11, 1978, when the police came the dormitory was closed and they had seen through the hole in the door and he had correctly identified the accused in the central jail. He does not remember what clothes the accused was wearing when he left the hotel on January 9, 1978. 16. On January 11, 1978, when the police came the dormitory was closed and they had seen through the hole in the door and he had correctly identified the accused in the central jail. He does not remember what clothes the accused was wearing when he left the hotel on January 9, 1978. 16. P.W. 10 Om prakash Sharma was Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur in January 1978. The identification parade in the central jail regarding the accused Surendra Singh was held by him. Surendra Singh was sent to judicial custody on January 13, 1978. 7 other persons from the custody were mixed at the identification parade along with the accused. The witnesses Ratan Lal Kishan Lal and Noratan were called for identification. All the three witnesses correctly identified Surendra Singh accused. He took the necessary precautions that no special mark of identification is apparent which might lead to the identification of the accused Surendra Singh, in the month of February 1978, I had the identification for the ring. The police had produced sealed packet. The seals were found intact. He broke open the seals, took out the gold ring for the purposes of identification. Five more gold rings of same nature were mixed. Jwala Prasad witness correctly identified the ring. On being cross examined, he stated that the accused Surendra Singh had told him before the identification parade could be held that the police had already shown to him to the witnesses. He had made a note to this effect on Ex.P. 13. P.W. 11 Ram Dayal stated that in the month of January 1978 he was Dy. Jailor in the Central Jail, Jaipur, Mahesh Chandra was in custody in the central jail on January 9, 1978. Surendra Singh had come to meet him. He had submitted the application Ex. 14. Surendra Singh was permitted to meet Mahesh Chand. On the same day, Surendra Singh also met Raju. He was permitted by me vide Ex. P. 15. On January 11, 1978 Surendra Singh filed the application Ex. P. 16 to meet Mahesh. He was permitted by the Assistant Jailor. Ex. Ps. 14, 15 and 16 handed over by Surendra Singh to Hawaldar of the Sadar Gate. The accused Surendra Singh did not appear before him and as such, he was unable to identify him. 17. P. 15. On January 11, 1978 Surendra Singh filed the application Ex. P. 16 to meet Mahesh. He was permitted by the Assistant Jailor. Ex. Ps. 14, 15 and 16 handed over by Surendra Singh to Hawaldar of the Sadar Gate. The accused Surendra Singh did not appear before him and as such, he was unable to identify him. 17. P.W. 12, Shyam Sunder Lal is a petition writer who sits out side the Central Jail. Ex. Ps. 14, 15 and 16 were written by him. He correctly identified the accused and stated, he was the person who has signed Ex. Ps. 14, 15 and 16 in his presence. 18. P.W. 13 Noratan Mal stated that on January 11, 1978 he was working on the post of the Manager of Ashoka Hotel. On January 7, 1978 one person had come in the night at about 9.30 P.M. and requested for a room. The dormitory was allotted to him. Ex.P. 17 is the register maintained for this purpose. This person entered his name as Satish Chand Sarin, New Delhi. He correctly identified the photo of the deceased. On January 9, 1978 the deceased had asked him for a soap, but as the same was not available in the stock, Sarin went out to purchase soap. When the police arrived and went to the dormitory which was found locked from out side. The lock was broken open by the police and it was found that the dead body of Sarin was lying there. The witness correctly identified the accused Surendra Singh and stated that the accused had stayed in his hotel from January 5, 1978 in room No. 2. He further stated that room No. 2 is close to the dormitory. These two rooms were occupied. 19. P.W. 14, Sumer Singh, stated that on January 11, 1978 he was acting as Assistant to the Head Moharir in police station Manak Chowk. Badri Prasad, Assistant Sub-Inspector, police had recorded the report in the Roz-Namcha, Ex. P. 19. The report was correctly recorded. 20. P.W. 15 stated that since 1975 he is Assistant Sub-Inspector at Manak Chowk, Police Station. The police party had gone in search of the accused Ibrahim. At about 6 Oclock in the evening I was told that a person was moving in suspicious circumstances near the Central Jail. P. 19. The report was correctly recorded. 20. P.W. 15 stated that since 1975 he is Assistant Sub-Inspector at Manak Chowk, Police Station. The police party had gone in search of the accused Ibrahim. At about 6 Oclock in the evening I was told that a person was moving in suspicious circumstances near the Central Jail. He enquired from him, to which the accused replied that he was resident of Jhotwara and he suddenly took a rikshaw and went away. That created suspicion, he, therefore, took some constables with him and came near Minerva Cinema. The accused Surendra Singh was found there. He was apprehended on being interrogated. Restated that he is a resident of Jhotwara and is a student of L.L. B. The accused was brought to the police station, Manak Chowk. The report Ex. P, 19 was recorded. His search was taken. He had a wrist watch Ex. 6 along-with a chain. A gold ring and Rs. 25/- cash were also found. A piece of chit in which digits 73874 were written. He had also putting on a necklace made of Brass. He had another ring on which H was inscribed. A key was also found on which TRIPEE 39 was written. There was a token on which a chit was affixed bearing No. 201. The ring Ex. I was sealed. On being cross examined he had stated that he had gone in search of the accused Ibrahim. At the Manak Chowk police station, the accused was first interrogated and was then arrested. Only the ring Ex. 1 was sealed and the other articles found from the person of the accused were not sealed. 21. P.W. 16, Chatar Singh, stated that on January 11, 1978 he was Station House Officer, Manak Chowk Police Station. The Police out-post at Sanganeri Gate is subordinate to the Manak Chowk police station. The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Badri Prasad, had gone in search of accused Ibrahim. He was accompanied with constables, Moinuddin, Kailash and Richhpal Singh. They arrested Surendra Singh and came to the police station. Ex. P. 19 was the report lodged by Badri Prasad. His personal search was taken and certain articles were recovered from him. The gold ring was sealed. The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Badri Prasad, had gone in search of accused Ibrahim. He was accompanied with constables, Moinuddin, Kailash and Richhpal Singh. They arrested Surendra Singh and came to the police station. Ex. P. 19 was the report lodged by Badri Prasad. His personal search was taken and certain articles were recovered from him. The gold ring was sealed. On interrogation it was found that the accused was connected with the murder of some person in the hotel and as such, a direction was given that the accused be kept behind curtains. On being cross-examined the witness stated that he did not go to Ashoka Hotel nor did he make any investigation. The case was then handed cover for investigation to some other officer after the initial inquiry which was made. 22. P.W. 17, Vijay Singh is a constable posted at police Station Sadar. On January 28, 1978 he had taken a letter to the Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur. On January 30, 1978, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar had given him 6 sealed packets along-with the letter Ex. P. 22. He handed over these letters to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The packets were duly sealed and were handed over there. 23. P.W. 18, Rajendra Kumar stated that he is the Proprietor of Raj Deep Hotel. He maintains a passengers register. On January 9, 1978, at 12.30 P.M. Surendra Singh accused came and stayed in his hotel. There is a entry in the register to this effect. On January 13, 1978, the police had brought the accused Surendra Singh to the hotel. He then went to room No. 201 where he was staying. The witness did not go to the room No. 201. The locks which are supplied to the passengers have two keys. One key remains with the hotel management and the other remains with the passenger. 24. P.W. 19, Ratan Lal, is the Proprietor of the Ashoka Hotel. He stated that in 1977 Shri Noratan Mai was his Manager. A Passenger register is maintained at the hotel. On January II, 1978 at about 1 P.M., a telephone was received by him from a un-known person who described himself as Amar C.I.D. Inspector. He told him that a sales man has been murdered in your dormitory. He enquired the name from the person, but the telephone was made off. He then went to the dormitory along with Kishan. On January II, 1978 at about 1 P.M., a telephone was received by him from a un-known person who described himself as Amar C.I.D. Inspector. He told him that a sales man has been murdered in your dormitory. He enquired the name from the person, but the telephone was made off. He then went to the dormitory along with Kishan. The doors of the dormitory were closed and locked from out-side. Then the witness saw from a hole of the door that the goods in the room are scattered and a dead body is lying in the pool of blood. He, therefore, telephoned to Police Station Sadar. On January 5, 1978, the accused Surendra Singh had occupied room No. 2t The police had collected the blood and sealed it. A list was prepared of the clothes lying there. Ex. P. 27 is the site-plan and showing location of the dormitory. He correctly identified the accused in the identification parade in the Central Jail. On January 7,1978 when Sarin came and stayed in the hotel at about 9.30 P.M, he had put on a watch and had a gold ring on his finger. On being cross examined, the witness stated that he cannot identify the ring and the wrist watch which Sarin was putting on. The dormitory is just behind the rooms Nos. 26 and 27. The room No. 2 is closed to the dormitory and is only separated by room No. 1. The dormitory has a window on the rear side. This window was closed when the police came. The dormitory has no separate bath and later in. 25. P.W. 20 is Dr. Narendra Kumar. He was Medical Jurist in S.M.S. hospital on January 12, 1978. He conducted the postmortem on January 12, 1978. On external examination of the deceased it was found that the rigour mortis was present in the lower extremities only. Dried clotted blood present at both nostrils and mouth. There was an incised wound 11/2" x ⅙" x deep false deep transversely placed on front of neck above thyroid region in the middle with failing on left lateral side of the neck. Dried clotted blood present at both nostrils and mouth. There was an incised wound 11/2" x ⅙" x deep false deep transversely placed on front of neck above thyroid region in the middle with failing on left lateral side of the neck. Three incised wounds of 4J' in length mixing to one another forming one big lesion of the size 41/2' x 2' trachea deep as shown in the diagram(marked in the post mortem report) placed transversely in front of neck below thyroid, more on the left lateral side of the neck. There was a haematoma with a feeling of depressed fracture over left parietal region. This is of almost 2" x 2" oval in shape. On further dissection depressed fracture almost making a hole in the vault of the cranium of 2" x 2" over left parietal bone and the broken pieces are lying in the cranial cavity. From this hole commutate multiple fractures have been found involving left temporal bone extending upto the base of middle cranial fossa right side in middle. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. In the opinion of the Medical Jurist the cause of death was coma due to fracture of skull and injury to brain. In the opinion of the doctor the duration of the death could be from 24 hours to 48 hours before the postmortem examination. 26. P.W. 24 is Banwari Lal employed as Photographer in the police department. He had taken photographs Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P: 4. The Photo Ex. P. 32 is of the dormitory where the deceased was staying. 27. P.W, 22, Kalian Khan alias Dilawar Khan stated that he had given the hammer Ex. 3 to the accused Surendra Singh. The accused was staying with the Tehsildar at Shahabad. The accused told him that the Tehsildar is in need of a hammer so he wanted him to give a hammer. The hammer was given to him with the request that it shall be returned as early as possible because it is a weapon of daily use. 28. P.W. 23, Devki Nandan, stated that on January 11, 1978, he was posted as A.S.I. at Thana Sadar, Jaipur, the report Ex. P 8 was handed over to him by constable Vijai Singh at 6. 45 P.M. 29. 28. P.W. 23, Devki Nandan, stated that on January 11, 1978, he was posted as A.S.I. at Thana Sadar, Jaipur, the report Ex. P 8 was handed over to him by constable Vijai Singh at 6. 45 P.M. 29. P.W. 24 is Sujan Singh, who has stated that on January II, 1978 he was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar. At about 4 P.M. he was informed on telephone that a murder has been committed in Ashoka Hotel. He, therefore, went to the Ashoka Hotel along with other police officials. On January 12, 1978 at about 8 P.M., the accused Surendra Singh told him that on January 9, 1978 he had murdered Shri Sarin who was staying in the dormitory of Ashoka Hotel. The accused further told him that he had murdered Sarin with the help of a hammer and a knife which he had kept in room No. 201 of Raj Deep hotel. He further stated that the hammer was in his Brief-case and that the knife was hidden below his Gadda on the cot. The information so given by the accused was recorded vide Ex. P. 34. On January 13, 1978, the accused took the police party to room No. 201 in Raj Deep Hotel: from where, he produced a knife from below the Gadda and the hammer from the Brief-case. Both of these articles were seized vide recovery memo Ex. P. 9. The bell bottom Ex. 4 and jerkin Ex. 5 was also seized. On being cross examined he has stated that when the accused was taken away from the police station Manak Chowk then he had nothing except wearing clothes. It is only a wooden door which was closed. The doors of the window were not fitted with the iron rods. The iron bolts were fitted on the doors from inside, but the doors could not be bolted. When Pajama Ex. 11 was taken into custody it had blood marks which were slightly wet. 30. The statement of the accused Surendra Singh was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. on January 17, 1978. The accused has admitted that he stayed in the Ashoka Hotel in room No. 2. He also admitted that a gold ring was also recovered from his possession, but it is not the same which is Ex. 1. He however, denied that the bill Ex. P. C. on January 17, 1978. The accused has admitted that he stayed in the Ashoka Hotel in room No. 2. He also admitted that a gold ring was also recovered from his possession, but it is not the same which is Ex. 1. He however, denied that the bill Ex. P. 11 was issued by the Ashoka Hotel. He also admitted his signatures on the entry in the passengers register Ex. 7 and the entry therein Ex. P. 80. He stated that though at the identification parade he was correctly identified, but the police had shown him to the witnesses prior to the identification parade. 31. Having considered the entire prosecution evidence and the statement of the accused there can be no hesitation in holding that from the evidence on record the accused-appellant stayed in room No. 2 of the Ashoka Hotel from January 5, 1978 to January 9, 1978 while the deceased was staying in the dormitory of the hotel from January 7, 1978. This is proved from the evidence of P.W- 19 Ratan Lal and P.W. 13 Noratan Mal. The entry Ex. P. 18 is written by the accused himself and had signed it. There is plenty of evidence on record that the deceased Sarin was staying in the dormitory of the Ashoka Hotel. This is proved by the statements of P.W. 8 Kailash Prasad and P.W. 9 Kishan Lal, and from the photographs Ex. P. 1 to Ex.P.4. There is ample evidence to come to this conclusion that Sarin stayed in the dormitory from January 7, 1978 till he was murdered. 32. The accused was seen with the deceased. He was found taking tea with him by the waiter Kishan Lal P.W.9. On January 9, 1979 when P.W. 9 Kishan Lal went to the dormitory he found the accused sitting with Sarin in the dormitory; after 2-3 minutes Sarin again ordered for tea. Accordingly, Kishan Lal again took the tea and found the accused sitting with him. After this, Sarin was not found alive and on the same day, i.e. on January 9, 1978, the accused left Ashoka Hotel and went to the Raj Deep Hotel. 33. The gold ring Ex. 1 which has been recovered conclusively establishes that it was the accused and accused alone who committed the murder. After this, Sarin was not found alive and on the same day, i.e. on January 9, 1978, the accused left Ashoka Hotel and went to the Raj Deep Hotel. 33. The gold ring Ex. 1 which has been recovered conclusively establishes that it was the accused and accused alone who committed the murder. The gold ring Ex.l was recovered from the person of the accused on January 11, 1978 when he was arrested. The gold ring has been identified by P.W.2 Jwala Prasad. The ring was correctly identified before Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Judicial Magistrate. The accused has not claimed that this ring belonged to him. On the contrary, he stated that a gold ring was recovered from him, but that is not the same. In the face of the over-whelming evidence on record it is exceedingly difficult to hold that the ring has been changed by the investigating agency. The recovery memo, which was prepared at the time when the ring was seized and sealed, clearly shows that the arguments are of only after thoughts and cannot be subject of any substance. 34. The paper slip bearing digits 73874 was also found. This is the telephone No. of Ashoka Hotel and there is over-whelming evidence on record that this chit was found from the possession of the accused. The evidence of P.W.6 Milap Chand clearly shows that at about 1 P.M. accused came to his shop situated near Ram Prakash Cinama and described himself as a C.I.D. Inspector, His telephone was used and the accused had a detailed talk. Similarly, the recovery of knife Ex.2,hammer Ex. 3 and blood stained clothes also lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused alone who had committed the murder of Sarin. The report of the Serologist shows that these weapons of offence were found to be stained with human blood. The knife Ex. 2 and the hammer Ex. 3 were discovered at the instance of the accused in consequence of the information furnished by him to the police. 35. Apart from these, there are other circumstances which lead to the conclusion that it is the accused alone who has committed the murder of Sarin. The accused was staying in room No. 2 of the Ashoka Hotel from January 5, 1978 to January 9, 1978 and vacated it at about 11 A.M. on that day. 35. Apart from these, there are other circumstances which lead to the conclusion that it is the accused alone who has committed the murder of Sarin. The accused was staying in room No. 2 of the Ashoka Hotel from January 5, 1978 to January 9, 1978 and vacated it at about 11 A.M. on that day. The deceased Sarin was also staying in the dormitory of Ashoka Hotel from January 7, 1978 till he was found dead. The deceased was not seen alive after 7 or 8 A.M. on January 9, 1978. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 6 Milap Chand from whose shop the accused had telephoned that a murder has been committed in the dormitory. 36. The learned trial court has also discussed the evidence threadbare and has come to the conclusion that the murder of Sarin was committed by none-else but the accused-appellant Surendra Singh. 37. We have also carefully analysed the evidence. We have no reason to take a view different from the one which the learned trial court has taken. 38. Having given our most anxious consideration we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to the accused appellant. We are of the considered opinion that it was the accused appellant alone who had committed the murder of Satish Chand Sarin. Consequently, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Surendra Singh is here by dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******