JUDGMENT S N. Khatri, J. - This is an appeal by accused against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane (Shri R.A. Gadekar), convicting him under Sections 360, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentencing him concurrently to 5 years R.I. and life imprisonment on the first two counts respectively. No separate sentence is passed under Section 201 I.P.C. 2. At the material time the appellant was working as a coolie in a transport concern at Thane known as "Delhi-U.P. Transport". Its office was located in a garage near Golden Dyes Company. The victim of murder was one Kanta, about 16, daughter of Complainant Nathu Alat. This Nathu used to reside in a hut in Hardas Nagar along with his family, that is, his wife Sarubai, Kanta and 4 other children. The prosecution case is that at about 5 p.m. on 6th May 1983, the appellant who was carrying on an affair with the girl, kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of her father Nathu and brought her to the room of one Maruti Birajdar P.W. 13 This Maruti also worked as a Clerk in the same Transport concern. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant had previously arranged with him that he (appellant) would stay in his room with the girl for Bome time. The appellant and the deceased moved to another place belonging to one Raghubar Pal P.W. 9 and they stayed there together in a separate room till 23rd May 1983. The prosecution allege that on that night around 11 the appellant left the place along with the deceased, falsely representing to Jaipatidevi P.W. 10 wife of Raghubar Pal-that the mother of the deceased had expired at his native place in U.P. and that they both were going there. This was the last occasion when the deceased was seen alive and in the company of the appellant. 3. The prosecution alleged that the appellant took the deceased to a bridge called "Kapurbaudi Bridge', situatated within the limits of Thane Municipal Corporation. There he is alleged to have committed her murder. Thereafter he removed her dead body on the same night to a place near Atgaon Railway Station and burnt it in a jungle about 1 km. away from the road. It appears that the appellant came back from that place and resumed his work of the Transport Concern as usual. 4. There he is alleged to have committed her murder. Thereafter he removed her dead body on the same night to a place near Atgaon Railway Station and burnt it in a jungle about 1 km. away from the road. It appears that the appellant came back from that place and resumed his work of the Transport Concern as usual. 4. Picking up the thread back, Nathu searched for the missing girl and eventually reported the matter to the Naupada Police Station on 7th May around 1 p.m. Thereafter on the same evening Nathu came to know from his neighbour Ganesh Sawate P.W.4 and others that the girl had left home on the previous evening in the company of the appellant in an auto-rickshaw. He, therefore, again contacted the Police on 9th May and lodged his fresh report (Exh. 7). Here in this report Nathu has expressed his suspicion against the appellant. As there were no results, the father wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Thane, who by his order dated 27th May 1983, transferred the investigation to the Local Crime Branch of Thane. The main investigation thereafter is carried out by P.S.I. Dhond P.W. 19 of L.C.B. 5. The appellant was arrested on 6th June 1983. Pursuant to a disclosure made by him on 9th June, the Police located the spot near the Kapurbaudi Bridge where the appellant had committed murder of the deceased. A pair of plastic Chappals (article 1) was recovered from there. Thereafter the appellant led the Police Party to the place in the jungle (near Atgaon Railway Station) from where were recovered a Dumber of human bones, two bunches of hair, partially burnt pieces of a quilt, a petticoat, a bellow blouse, bangles and two metal ear-rings. A bottle containing blackish oil was also found here. These articles (Articles Nos. 2 to 23) were seized as per panchanama Exh. 61. According to the prosecution, the burnt clothes and the ear-rings belonged to the deceased. 6. Pursuant to a disclosure made by the appellant on 11th June 1983, a nathani-a small golden nose ring. (Article 24), belonging to the deceased was recovered by the Police from the garage of the Transport Concern where the appellant had been admittedly residing prior to the incident. 6. Pursuant to a disclosure made by the appellant on 11th June 1983, a nathani-a small golden nose ring. (Article 24), belonging to the deceased was recovered by the Police from the garage of the Transport Concern where the appellant had been admittedly residing prior to the incident. On 15th June 1983 the room in which the appellant and the deceased had stayed in Raghubar Pal's house, was searched and a blouse and a petticoat (Article 27) alleged to be belonging to the deceased and her photograph (Exh. 10) were recovered. So also, quite a few cooking utensils (Articles 2S and 26) which the appellant is alleged to have purchased for setting up his home with the girl. Here it may be noted that these utensils bear the engraved name 'Ramu Birajdar', which the prosecution alleged, was falsely assumed by the appellant. 7. We need not recall all the steps taken in the investigation. Suffice it to mention that the bones recovered from the jungle, were sent to the Reader in Anatomy in Grant Medical College. According to his report, the bones were of a human being, probably a female of 18 to 20 years. The expert could not reach a definite opinion whether they belonged to one and the same individual and whether the injuries were ante mortem or post mortem. Two bunches of hair (Art. 10) found near the bones, were reported by the Chemical Analyser to be of the human origin. The identity of the blackish oil could not be established by him. After the investigation was over, the appellant was sent up to the Sessions Court to take his trial under Sections 302, 366 and 201 I.P.C. 8. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is one of total denial of his complicity in the crime. Apart from admitting that he used to stay in the garage of the Transport Concern, he has either denied or pleaded ignorance of the facts put to him in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. On consideration of the evidence before him, the learned Trial Judge held that the deceased was less than 18 years of age, that she was kidnapped by the appellant from the lawful guardianship of her father Nathu and that he had committed her murder in the manner alleged by the prosecution. P.C. On consideration of the evidence before him, the learned Trial Judge held that the deceased was less than 18 years of age, that she was kidnapped by the appellant from the lawful guardianship of her father Nathu and that he had committed her murder in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The learned Judge has accepted the prosecution story in all its details. Accordingly he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 9. The principal contentions raised by the appellant's learned Counsel Shri Menon are these: (1) The remains of the body claimed by the prosecution to have been recovered from near the Atgaon jungle have not satisfactorily been proved to belong to the deceased. (2) The identification of the articles as belonging to the deceased is mistaken. (3) The prosecution have failed to prove the factum of death of the deceased, much less that the death was homicidal. (4) The Police officers have indulged in planting the golden ring (Art. 24) in the garage of the Transport Concern and several articles such as photograph (Ex. 10), utensils etc. in the room of Raghubar Pal. 10. Inasmuch as there is no direct evidence on the factum of the death of the deceased and the prosecution solely rely on circumstantial evidence, the entire evidence will have to be considered with more than usual caution, keeping at the back of mind the well established principles that apply to the appreciation of circumstantial evidence. We shall first of all take up the question whether the deceased was a minor, being less than 18 years in May 1983. Shri Menon does not challenge the evidence on this aspect, which, apart from the oral testimony of the parents of the deceased, consists of School Certificate (Exh. 11) proved by Head Master Pathak P.W. 6. The birth date stated in the School Register is 19th August 1967. The Head Master has not at all been cross-examined. On this basis the age of the deceased as on 6th May 1983 works out to be less than 16 years. Indeed Shri Menon for the defence strenuously urged that this was the correct factual position. He highlighted this submission in the context of the opinion of the Reader in Anatomy given in his report (Exh. 51) to the effect that the girl was between 18 to 20 years. Indeed Shri Menon for the defence strenuously urged that this was the correct factual position. He highlighted this submission in the context of the opinion of the Reader in Anatomy given in his report (Exh. 51) to the effect that the girl was between 18 to 20 years. Shri Menon contends that if this particular opinion was also right-and again he very seriously urged that it was so-the bones found in the jungle were not of the deceased, but of some other older woman. 11. The argument of Shri Menon is no doubt ingenious, but does not bear scrutiny Dr. Vaidya Professor of Anatomy, who has issued the certificate (Exh. 51) is not examined. So his opinion on age cannot be treated as conclusive. We need not point out that there is always a margin of error in such opinions. More so, in the present case where the opinion is based on obviously insufficient data. Of course, the learned Professor is not to blame for this. His estimate could understandably err on the higher side. The Court cannot at once jump to the conclusion that the bones belong to a person different from the deceased. A firm finding in this regard will have to be reached only after careful consideration of the entire evidence on record. 12. On the limited question of age, we are satisfied that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that she was a minor, being less than 18 years. That at the material time she was under the lawful guardianship of her father, is duly proved and even otherwise not challenged by the defence, and rightly. 13. We next go to the question whether the prosecution have proved that the appellant took away the girl on the evening of 6th May 1983 as alleged. Neither the girl's father Nathu not the mother was present at their place on that evening. Both had gone away for their work. Nathu affirms that when he learned home around 6 p.m., his younger children informed him that the deceased had left home to answer the call of nature. He grew apprehensive, and made enquiries with neigh hours, with no results. Ultimately he filed missing report on the next day around 1 p.m. Ganesh P.W.4 affirms that he saw an auto rickshaw standing in front of Delhi. He grew apprehensive, and made enquiries with neigh hours, with no results. Ultimately he filed missing report on the next day around 1 p.m. Ganesh P.W.4 affirms that he saw an auto rickshaw standing in front of Delhi. U.P. Garage around 5.15 p.m. The deceased came from the side of her house and sat in the rickshaw. The appellant came from the Garage and joined her. The rickshaw then went away. He told this face to Nathu P.W.1 on the same evening when the latter contacted him. 14. We have taken note of the discrepancy in the evidence of these two witnesses, regarding the date on which Nathu got the aforesaid information from Ganesh. There is no mention of appellant in the first missing report of Nathu (Exh. 6) filed at the Police station on the afternoon of 7th. Normally we would have treated this discrepancy as important, but for other independent pieces of evidence, which reinforce the claim of Ganesh that the appellant had taken away the girl in the auto-rickshaw on the evening of 6th. We are shortly coming to them. There is also no suggestion made to Ganesh in his cross-examination to show that he is interested favorably in the prosecution or adversely against the appellant. We are inclined to accept the evidence of Ganesh. 15. The other pieces of evidence which further strengthen the aforesaid finding are these: Maruti Birajdar P.W.13 was admittedly employed as Clerk in the Transport Concern. He affirms that on 3rd May 1983, the appellant had approached him with a request to accommodate him and the deceased for 2-3 days in his (Maruti's) house. The appellant told him that Nathu was going to take away the deceased to their native village on 7th for settlement of her marriage. The witness knew that the appellant and the girl were in love with each other. Maruti adds that on 4th May 1983 the deceased herself saw him around 8 p.m. and made a similar request to him. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve this witness. The appellant has not either suggested in the witness's cross-examination or alleged in this section 313 Cr. P.C. examination that the witness had an axe to grind against him. Maruti affirms that when he returned home on the evening of 6th, he saw the appellant and the deceased in his room. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve this witness. The appellant has not either suggested in the witness's cross-examination or alleged in this section 313 Cr. P.C. examination that the witness had an axe to grind against him. Maruti affirms that when he returned home on the evening of 6th, he saw the appellant and the deceased in his room. The witness passed that night with them under the same roof. Maruti again visited his room on 10th and advised the appellant to get some other accommodation. Finally, the witness reveals, appellant told him on 13th that he had managed to get alternative accommodation in Azad Nagar itself and would move there with the deceased. 16. It is true true Nathu had made enquiries with Maruti Birajdar also as to the whereabouts of the deceased and the witness had on that occasion kept mum. Maruti explains that the appellant and the deceased had requested him to keep silent till they got their marriage registered. One may not be able to accept his further say that the appellant had also given him a threat All the same, his evidence read as a whole, does leave an impression that he is a truthful witness so far as the core of his testimony goes. The learned Judge was right in accepting his word. His evidence thus lends valuable support to the prosecution case that the appellant had taken away the deceased from her house on the evening of 6th May and brought her to Maruti's room. 17. In conjunction with Maruti should also be read the evidence of Raghubar Pal P.W.9, his wife Jaipatidevi P.W. 10 and Dhanpat Maurya P.W. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 shows that the appellant and the deceased approached them on 14th May 1983 for rented accommodation. Their house has two rooms. They stay in one and rent out the second. According to the couple, the appellant held out his name as 'Ramu Birajdar' and that the deceased was his wife. Raghubar P.W. 9 agreed to rent out the spare room to them on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-with cash deposit of Rs. 500/- P.W. 9 being illiterate, approached Dhanpat Maurya P.W. 11. a grocer having his shop nearby, to get a receipt prepared. Dhanpat affirms to have scribed the receipt (Ex. 44) on the instructions of Raghubar and the appellant. 18. 70/-with cash deposit of Rs. 500/- P.W. 9 being illiterate, approached Dhanpat Maurya P.W. 11. a grocer having his shop nearby, to get a receipt prepared. Dhanpat affirms to have scribed the receipt (Ex. 44) on the instructions of Raghubar and the appellant. 18. We are in agreement with the learned Judge that the evidence of the trio is acceptable. Shri Menon drew our attention to certain discrepancies in the evidence of Raghubar and his wife. First, according to Jaipatidevi, the appellant had requested for accommodation for just 10 days and had brought some articles with him on the very first date. As against this, according to Raghubar the lease was not restricted to any fixed term and the appellant had not brought any articles with him on the first date. These discrepancies by themselves do not impress us material it was also brought to our notice that Raghubar had in the beginning of his examination-in-chief stated that in May-June 1983, his sister's son was residing in the spare room and it was on his vacating the room that he gave it to the appellant. This discrepancy is again inconsequential. The period May-June is obviously stated approximately. It docs not necessarily mean after 14th May' on which date, Raghubar is sure, the appellant had turned up. 19. Next Shri Menon pointed out that Maruti Birajdar affirms that it was on 13th that the appellant had told him that he had secured alternative accommodation and would move there. In our opinion, these are discrepancies of truth and could have been eliminated only by intensive tutoring of witnesses, which apparently has not been done here by the prosecution. We are not impressed by any of the above mentioned contradictions. There is again no suggestion whatever that Raghubar, his wife or Maurya are adversely interested against the appellant. We have absolutely no hesitation in believing these three witnesses. 20. Shri Menon urges that the appellant had no reason whatever to assume the pseudo name of Ramu Birajdar. There can be a number of reasons for the appellant's doing so. As it is, he is a Muslim, and normally would not have been acceptable as a tenant to Raghubar-a Hindu. The appellant must also have been anxious to conceal his identity as the kidnapper of the deceased. There can be a number of reasons for the appellant's doing so. As it is, he is a Muslim, and normally would not have been acceptable as a tenant to Raghubar-a Hindu. The appellant must also have been anxious to conceal his identity as the kidnapper of the deceased. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire evidence, we are more than satisfied that the appellant had shifted with the deceased to one of the rooms of Raghubar P.W.9 on 14th May. 21. The next question is whether the prosecution claim that the appellant left with the deceased on the late night of 23rd May 1983 is duly established. Jaipatidevi P.W. 10 affirms that on that evening the appellant came home around 10 p.m. took his meal and told her that he would vacate the room for good with the deceased and go to his native place in U.P. He also disclosed that he had received a message that the deceased's mother had passed away. Jaipatidevi is positive that thereafter the appellant and the deceased left the place together. Jaipatidevi refunded Rs. 300/- to the appellant out of the deposit and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 200/- after the appellant's return. The appellant also told her that be would remove his belongings from the room after his return from U.P. Raghubar P.W.9 states that he was not present on the aforesaid occasion, being away on his duty. On return he learnt from Jaipatidevi that the couple had left the place because of the deceased's mother's death in U.P. 30-1-1987 22. We again do not see any good reason to doubt the testimony of Raghubar and Jaipatidevi on the aforesaid point. Shri Menon drew our attention to certain discrepancies in their evidence, which in our view are trivial. For example, according to Jaipatidevi, she did not mention any date to the appellant by which the balance of Rs.200/- out of the deposit wou1d be paid back to him. As against this, Raghubar P.W. 9 states that from what he learnt from Jaipatidel1j this amount was to be paid by 7th of the next month, that is, May. Such small discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of honest witnesses who are illiterate and when the evidence is recorded after lapse of quite some time. 23. As against this, Raghubar P.W. 9 states that from what he learnt from Jaipatidel1j this amount was to be paid by 7th of the next month, that is, May. Such small discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of honest witnesses who are illiterate and when the evidence is recorded after lapse of quite some time. 23. We now proceed to examine the evidence on the disclosure alleged to have been made by the appellant on 9tb June, and leading the Police party first to the Kapurbaudi Bridge and from there to the place near Atgaon. The evidence of P.S.I. Dhond P.W. 19 and pancha Ganesh P.W. 15 is in point. At the material time Ganesh was working as a helper in the Indian Aluminium Company at Kalwa. While he was on his way to see his friend, be was picked up by the Police for acting as Panch. He was taken to the L.C.B. Office where the appellant was present in Police custody. The appellant stated before the panch that he was willing to point out the place near the Kapurbaudi Bridge and other place beyond Shahapur. Memorandum of his statement was made which is at Exh. 59. Thereafter, the panch adds, he and his co-panch Eknath Patil accompanied the Police party and the appellant in a Police Jeep. The appellant led the party first near the Kapurbaudi Bridge and from there to a Pipe Line about 1 km. away. This place gets inundated by sea water during high tide. There was found a pair of chappals (Article 1) on green grass. These chappals were seized in presence of Panch as as per panchanama Exh. 60. The parents of the deceased were sent for and they were shown this pair of chappals. 24. From there, Ganesh P.W. 15 affirms, the entire party proceeded in Police Jeep towards Kasara side. At the instance of the appellant the vehicle was stopped close to Atgaon Railway Station. Thereafter he led the Police Party about 2 km. deep into the jungle. There in the bed of a dried up nala were found a number of scattered bones, a pair of metal ear rings, 6 bangles in whole and 4 pieces of other bangles and a small bottle containing liquid resembling oil. All these articles were scattered Over an area of 5' x 5'. There also lay a human skull-about 200 feet away. All these articles were scattered Over an area of 5' x 5'. There also lay a human skull-about 200 feet away. All these articles being Articles Nos.2 to 23 were seized by the Police as per panchanama Exh. 61. The evidence of the pancha as well as P.S.I. Dhond further shows that Dr. Marathe P.W. 2, Medical Officer of Shahapur, which is a Taluka place close by, was sent for and so also the parents of the deceased. The doctor appears to have given provisional opinion that the several bones were of human origin. 25. The pancha Ganesh was cross-examined in depth by the defence. We find that he has emerged out of it unscathed. The defence, do not suggest any reason why Ganesh should oblige the prosecution by falsely involving an innocent person on a very serious charge. We are absolutely satisfied, as the learned trial Judge was, that this witness is worthy of credit. We are satisfied that it was pursuant to the statement made by the appellant that the Police party could reach the two aforesaid spots. Of course only that portion of Exh. 59 which has distinctly led to the discovery of the facts has to be admitted in evidence, as permitted by section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26. Shri Menon has brought to our notice some irregularities in the preparation of the memorandum Exh. 59. Admittedly the appellant has made his statement in Hindi. P.S.I. Dhond has recorded the memorandum in Marathi. As knowledge of the fact discovered is attributed to an accused person on the basis of his statement, it is always desirable to record the statement verbatim in the language actually used by him. So also the learned Judge has failed to dissect from the entire statement, the precise portion admissible under section 27. We are not happy to see that the trial Judge who is of a sufficient standing has not taken She necessary care in this regard. Even if we proceed on the basis that the precise statement of the appellant remains satisfactorily unproved, the fact that the police party located the two spots in consequence of his having made some statements before them, can be independently proved and to this extent the evidence remains totally unassailable. This aspect assumes significance in the present matter because both spots are virtually unfrequented by public, being about 1 km. This aspect assumes significance in the present matter because both spots are virtually unfrequented by public, being about 1 km. away from the road. In absence of the appellant leading the Police to them, it would have been next to impossible for anyone to locate them in the ordinary course of things. 27. This takes us to the next important question whether the chappals (Article 1) recovered from the first spot and Articles 2 to 23 recovered from the second spot have been connected with the deceased. We have the evidence of both parents of the girl, identifying the chappals as belonging to her. They have also affirmed that the burnt pieces of blouse, petticoat, the pair of earrings and bangles (in whole and in pieces) belong to the deceased. Shri Menon was seriously critical about this part of the prosecution evidence. According to him, the clothes are burnt so extensively that it would be impossible even for the parents of the deceased to identify them. As regards the bangles, his submission was that if they were really on the girl's wrists at the time she was set on fire the glass of the bangle, would melt. We find some substance in this argument. We do not think it sole to attach any importance to the seizure of bangles. However, we cannot agree that the parents of the girl would not be able to correctly identify the parity burnt pieces of blouse and petticoat or the chappals. We say so after personally examining the extent to which the clothes have got burnt we cannot reject the evidence of the girl's parents on this count. The lower Court has rightly believed them. 28. Now we take up the question whether the bones found at the second spot belong to the deceased girl. It is true that this part of the evidence taken by itself dissociated from the rest on other items is not enough to sustain a finding that these were the remains of the deceased Kanta alone. Even Dr. Vaidya himself is not positive in his opinion that all the bones belong to one and the same individual. However, there are two or three links which put the connection beyond doubt. In the first place, all the bones have been positively opined by the two doctors to be human origin. Dr. Even Dr. Vaidya himself is not positive in his opinion that all the bones belong to one and the same individual. However, there are two or three links which put the connection beyond doubt. In the first place, all the bones have been positively opined by the two doctors to be human origin. Dr. Vaidya further opines that they were probably of a female. No doubt be bas estimated the age at 18-20 years, while the other evidence shows that she was about 16. There is always some margin of error in medical opinion. Then Dr. Vaidya did not have the advantage of all material date such as state of development of relevant parts of the body-private parts, breasts etc. We are not impressed by Shri Menon's submission that because of the discrepancy on age, we must bold that the bones were not of the deceased. 29. Deceased's clothes were found in close vicinity of the skeletal remains. They have been satisfactorily identified as those of the deceased by her parents. When we consider the entire evidence together, we have no doubt that the skeletal remains belonged to the deceased and none else. As regards the chappals (Article 1), we have taken due note of Shri Menon's submission that they do not have any mud clinging to them, and this makes suspect their seizure from the first spot near Kapurbaudi Bridge. Simply because there is no mention of this particular fact in the seizure memo Exh. 60 or because today we do not find mud on the chap pals, we cannot persuade ourselves to brush aside the evidence of the deceased's parents to the effect that the chappals belong to the deceased and were in her actual use for quite some time before the incident. In passing, we may note that there is a reference of white plastic chappals even in the first missing report of Nathu (Exh. 6). 30. Now we come to the recovery of other incriminating articles from the garage of the Transport Concern where the appellant was admittedly living before the incident, and from the room occupied by him in Raghubar Pal's house. We shall first dispose of the recovery of the golden ring (Article 24) from the garage. Apart from P.S.I. Dhond, we have evidence of the Pancha Sharad Joshi P.W. 17. We shall first dispose of the recovery of the golden ring (Article 24) from the garage. Apart from P.S.I. Dhond, we have evidence of the Pancha Sharad Joshi P.W. 17. Sharad's evidence is to the effect that no 11th June 1983, the appellant while be was in Police custody made a statement before him and the other pancha Ramchandra Rane that he bad kept the golden ring, wrapped in paper, in his residence in a fin box and that he was willing of show the place to them. The memorandum of this statement was made by the Sub Inspector which is at Exh. 65. Thereafter the party proceeded to the garage premises and found the golden ring Article 24. The particulars of this seizure are recorded in the panchanama Exh. 61. Sharad Joshi is a vegetable dealer of Kalwa. There is no material at all to show that he bas any adverse animus against the appellant or is otherwise under the thumb of the police. 31. Although Shri Menon did not make any grievance on this count, we have noted that the timings of the two panchanamas are noted in a different ink; from the ink of the rest of the contents of the documents. This means that the space was kept blank in the panchanama for the timings being inserted later. Investigating officers should scrupulously avoid such aberrations in performance of their duties. In a proper case, the Court would be justified in disbelieving their evidence in view of such lapses. All the same in the present case, we have scrutinised the evidence of the pancha with care and we are satisfied that be is truthful. Thus the learned Judge was right in his finding that the golden nose ring (Article 24) was seized by the police from the charge pursuant to the information given by the appellant. 32. This article 24 is duly connected with the deceased by the evidence of girl's father and mother. Both of them have identified this ring as belonging to her. The prosecution, have also examined Meghraj Shaha P.W. 8. He is a salesman in the Jewellery shop "Shah Jawantraj Kapurchandji Gwalia". The evidence of the girl's mother and Shaha P.W. 8 satisfactorily establishes that the girl's mother had purchased this nose ring from the aforesaid shop on 15th April 1983 for the girl for a price of Rs. The prosecution, have also examined Meghraj Shaha P.W. 8. He is a salesman in the Jewellery shop "Shah Jawantraj Kapurchandji Gwalia". The evidence of the girl's mother and Shaha P.W. 8 satisfactorily establishes that the girl's mother had purchased this nose ring from the aforesaid shop on 15th April 1983 for the girl for a price of Rs. 55/- The salesman has also produced the counterfoil of the Cash Bill (Ex. 41). This bears the signature of not only the salesman, but even of the deceased. He has identified Article 24 as the one that was sold to the deceased under Ex. 41. The salesman asserts that he could identify the article positively, in view of the peculiarity of the folding hook of the ring. Again we find no Justification to discard the evidence of Shaha P.W. 8, who has no axe to grind against the appellant. We are more than satisfied that the ring (Artic1e 24) was purchased for the deceased on 15th April 1983 from the aforesaid jewellery shop and that it was this ring only which was seized from the garage residence of the appellant pursuant to the information given by him. 33. Now the items recovered from the room of Raghubar Pal P.W. 9. Here the panch a is Shriram P.W. 16 who is an Estate Broker of Kalwa. His evidence shows that on 15th June 1983 around 3 p.m. Raghubar's room previously occupied by the appellant and the deceased was searched. Aluminium utensils (Article 25) (1 Tapela. 1 Cup, 2 Topes, 2 dishes and 2 lids), the deceased's photograph (Exh. 10), the rent receipt (Ex. 44) passed by Raghubar Pal in favour of the appellant on 14th May 1983, a stove (Article 26) and blouse and petticoat (Article 27) were recovered. 34. Again nothing has been brought on record to show that this pancha is interested in deposing falsely against the appellant. The witness is a respectable man. Quite a few aluminium pots bear the engraved name 'Ramu Birajdar' along with the date 12.5.1983. Fattesing P.W. 12 affirms to be a partner in a petty aluminium utensils shop in Manpada locality. According to, him, on 12th May 1983 the present appellant purchased these aluminium articles from his shop and it was, at his request that the witness engraved the name 'Ramu Birajdar' on the utensils and the date of purchase. Fattesing P.W. 12 affirms to be a partner in a petty aluminium utensils shop in Manpada locality. According to, him, on 12th May 1983 the present appellant purchased these aluminium articles from his shop and it was, at his request that the witness engraved the name 'Ramu Birajdar' on the utensils and the date of purchase. This witness him stood the test of cross-examination well. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve his evidence. The learned Judge was, therefore, right, in holding that the appellant had purchased these utensils from Fattesing Shaha for setting up his home with the deceased on 12th May 1983. The pseudo name 'Ramu Birajdar' was also got engraved by him from Fattesing. 35. As regards the photograph (Exh. 10), the girl's parents have proved beyond any pale of doubt that it is hers and of none else. The evidence of Jayantilal Shah P.W. 14 shows that two girls bad approached him on 15th August 1981 for setting themselves photographed. According to him, a joint photograph of the two girls was taken and Exh. 10 represents only one half of it. The evidence of this witness and P.S.I. Dhond further shows that it was on 9th September 1983 that the negative (Exh. 55) of this photograph (Exh. 10) was recovered from the photographer. All this evidence remains unshaken. We hold that the deceased photograph (Ex. 10) was found from the room in occupation of the appellant. We find that the police have taken pains to collect all possible evidence, connecting the deceased as well as the accused with the crime, from independent diverse sources. We also note that all this evidence is credible and has stood close scrutiny. 36. We have deliberately considered all the individual circumstances rather in detail, because we are conscious of the position that the fate of the appellant in the present case hangs on circumstantial evidence. The dead body has not been recovered in one whole piece -obviously because it was in the circumstances of the case, impossible to do so. There is also no apparent motive established in the case. The dead body has not been recovered in one whole piece -obviously because it was in the circumstances of the case, impossible to do so. There is also no apparent motive established in the case. However, on considering all the circumstances cumulatively, we have absolutely no doubt that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had kidnapped the deceased from the parents' home on the evening of 6th May 1983, and liquidated her on the night of 23rd/24th May 1983 in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The findings of the learned Trial Judge on all facts are correct. The appellant was rightly convicted for offences punishable under sections 366, 201 and 302 Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge was also right in not awarding a separate sentence under section 201 Indian Penal Code. We uphold his order in its entirety. The appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.