JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Alwar by his judgment dated 8th Feb., 1986 for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of finde, he has to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Against this conviction and sentence he has preferred this appeal. 2. The deceased in this case is Mst. Manta, who was the Bhabhi of the appellant. On the fateful day i.e. 17th August, 1985, deceased Manta with some other woman had gone to their field which was near the Ratnaki jungle for taking-fodder. The appellant Bhamri was also with them. As it was about to rain, the other women went to the village and when Manta did not return her mother-in-law Ramali went in search of her and found her dead. There were several injuries on her neck and face. On hearing her shouts, several people collected there. A report to this effect was lodged by Jagdish S/o Padam, who is P.W.1. The investigation process was sot in motion, Besides preparing the site plan and collecting the blood stained soil etc, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.were recorded, Post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by P.W.15 Dr. Laxman Singh and P.W. 16 Dr.Gopal Sharma along with the third doctor. The accused was arrested on 20th August, 1985 and on basis of information given by him, a blood stained Daranti was recovered from his house, which was in a bucket hanging on a peg. The Kurta, Panja (Dhoti) and Safi which the accused was wearing and on which there were blood stains, were seized and sealed by P.W. 17 Ramhet Sharma, S.H.O. The clothes of the deceased, the clothes of the accused, the Daranti and blood stained soil were sent to the Chemical Examiner, and according to this report, all of them contained human blood of 'A' group. 3. The witnesses in the case turned hostile. P.W. 2 Munshi even refused to admit his signatures on memo about the recovery of blood stained soil and control soil. He was a witness about the extra judicial confession but he refused to 'support this story. 4. 3. The witnesses in the case turned hostile. P.W. 2 Munshi even refused to admit his signatures on memo about the recovery of blood stained soil and control soil. He was a witness about the extra judicial confession but he refused to 'support this story. 4. P.W. 3 Kabooli and P.W. 5 Smt. Battam had gone with Manta to collect the fodder and they have not supported the story about the appellant Bhamri going with them on the fateful day. Both of them have not been able to explain as to why they did not ask Manta to accompany them back to the village. Similarly, P.W. 4 Smt. Rumali, who is the mother of the appellant was also resiled from her police statement and stated that the appellant has not gone to the jungle along with Manta and others on the fateful day. Even P.W. 6 Ram Hans, husband of the deceased has denied the presence of the appellant along with the deceased and others on that day. He has stated that the appellant had gone to village Sewa two days prior to the incident and had returned to the village in the evening after the incident had occurred. His further allegation is that the SHO was demanding money and as he could not pay the money, his brother was falsely implicated. P.W. 7 Chirmoli had earlier stated in his police statement that he had seen the accused and the deceased cutting fodder in a field but he has not supported this story before the court. P.W. 8 Moola has denied that the accused made an extra judicial confession before him. P.W. 9 Nandan has also not supported the extra judicial confession and also the recovery of clothes from the accused. He has stated that the police obtained his signatures on the blank papers. 5. P.W. 12 Gordhan Singh is the Head Constable who has deposited the six packets received by him in sealed condition in the Malkana on 20th August, 1985 and in the same condition the same were sent to the PSL on 27th August, 1985 with constable Babu Lal and they remained in sealed condition so long they were in his possession. P.W. 13 Babu Lal is the constable who took the sealed packets to the FSL and delivered them in a sealed condition in which they were received by him. P.W. 13 Babu Lal is the constable who took the sealed packets to the FSL and delivered them in a sealed condition in which they were received by him. P.W. 14 Man Singh brought the clothes of the deceased from the hospital in a sealed condition and deposited them in the Malkhana at the Police Station. 6. P.W. 17, Ramhet Sharma, Station House Officer, Police Station Govind Garh is the important witness in the case. On receipt of report Ex.P.1 handed over to him by Jagdish, a formal first information report was registered and then he proceeded to the site. Besides the inspection of the site, recovery of blood stained soil, and control soil, he got post mortem conducted on the body of the deceased. On 20th August, 1985 he arrested the accused and on the same day, the accused gave information that he could recover a blood stained Daranti which was in his possession. This information was recorded in Ex.P.22 and on the same day they proceeded along with the accused to his residential house and recovered the Daranti from a bucket which was hanging on a peg. This was sealed and the memo Ex.P.23 was drawn. According to him blood stains-were visible on the Daranti. He had also recovered one Daranti from the place where the body of Manta was recovered and this was also sealed. He had also recovered the Kurta, Panja and safi of the accused which he, was wearing and contained blood stains and they were sealed after preparing the memo Ex.P.12. He has denied the suggestion that the obtained signatures of the witnesses on blank papers of that they were not informed what written in the memoes. He admitted that he did not interrogate any witness at the Sita but the statements were recorded in the Village. 7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He claimed ignorance on most of the matters but admitted his arrest. He denied the recovery of Daranti on his information, and the clothes alleged to be taken from him. 8. He admitted that he did not interrogate any witness at the Sita but the statements were recorded in the Village. 7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He claimed ignorance on most of the matters but admitted his arrest. He denied the recovery of Daranti on his information, and the clothes alleged to be taken from him. 8. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the contention of the accused that there was no oral evidence to connect him with the crime but relying upon the evidence about the recovery of the Daranti and blood stained clothes from the accused and the finding of the expert about the presence of 'A' group blood on the clothes of the deceased and clothes of the accused and the Daranti, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above holding the above evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae, has contended that the evidence relied upon for holding the accused guilty cannot be said to be sufficient. According to him, no witness has been examined to prove the recovery of Daranti at the instance of the accused and no witness has been examined to show that the clothes of the accused ware recovered from his person. It is contended that in absence of corroboration by independent witness, the S.H.O. Ramhet Sharma cannot be believed in this respect. Further it is contended that the recovery was made from a place which was not in the exclusive possession of the accused and it could not be connected with the offence. The next contention is that the Daranti was not shown to Doctor nor it was asked to him whether this weapon could cause injuries of the deceased. 10. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Kartarey and Ors. v. The State of U.P., 1976 (1) SCC 721 , wherein the importance of showing the weapon of offence to the medical witness for his opinion whether the injuries on the deceased could be caused with that weapon was emphasised. However, in this case, the conviction of the accused was maintained. In Nachhattar and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, 1976 (1) SCC 750 , it was held that when the recovery witnesses are not examined by the prosecution than adverse inference is justified. However, in this case, the conviction of the accused was maintained. In Nachhattar and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, 1976 (1) SCC 750 , it was held that when the recovery witnesses are not examined by the prosecution than adverse inference is justified. This was a case of use of fire arms and the allegation was that the empty cartridges recovered were of three firearms, and who was the person who used the fire arasm was mistry. In such circumstances, in absence of examination of recovery witnesses, the whole matter was considered doubtful. 11. In Mst. Bhagan v. State of Pepsu AIR 1955 PEPSU 33 a gandasi was recovered from an open place namely the compound which was accessible and was jointly owned by the husband of the convict and deceased,. Before the actual recovery a large number of persons had occasion to Visit that place. The presence of the gandasi could have been detected by persons of present there and had Visited the place long before the recovery. In this case, the murder was committed in the same compound from where the gandasi was said to be recovered at the instance of the accused. In such circumstance it was held that recovery could not be attributed to that accused. 12. In U.K. Singh @ Kisar Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1987 (II) RLR 718 the eye witnesses did, not support the prosecution case and the witnesses turned hostile, may be because there was a compromise between them. It was held to be a case of nil evidence and the accused were acquitted, in Hansiya and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1984 RLR 153 it was held that no-production of material witnesses by prosecution casts serious reflection on fairness of trial and the accused were acquitted. In this case, eye witnesses had not been examined. In Gulab and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1985 RLR 123 the motbirs of recovery memo denied the recovery in their presence. It was held to be unsafe to rely on statement of InVestigating officer. In this case of dacoity and murder the recovery was of ornaments. In Gomtu v. State 1972 Cr.L.J. 687 it has been held that confessional part of statement of accused does not fall under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and is not admissible in evidence. 13. It was held to be unsafe to rely on statement of InVestigating officer. In this case of dacoity and murder the recovery was of ornaments. In Gomtu v. State 1972 Cr.L.J. 687 it has been held that confessional part of statement of accused does not fall under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and is not admissible in evidence. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the accused in this case has taken a plea of alibi which he has failed to prove and his conduct has become suspicious. It is contended that it was for him to explain the presence of blood stains-on his clothes but he has not done so. According to the learned Public Prosecutor recovery of clothes of the accused and the recovery of Daranti of his instance from his house are sufficient to connect the accused with crime and the report of the FSL. that there was. 'A' group blood on the items and as well as on the clothes of the deceased is sufficient evidence to hold the accused guilty. It is contended that in the report Ex.P.1, it has been mentioned that the appellant Bhamri had also gone to the jungle to fetch fodder when Mants and Ors. had gone there. This part of the report has not been claimed to be false by Jagdish who lodged the report. At the time, the report was lodged no one knew that the appellant was the offender hence correct facts were mentioned and it was later on that all the eye witnesses, who are related to the accused have turned hostile. It: is contended that there was no necessity of examining the witnesses who were inclined towards the accused and the Station House Officer Ramhet Sharma has proved the recovery of Daranti as well as of the clothes of the accused and when the same blood group has been found on these items as the blood group on the clothes of the deceased, this eVidence is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. In Kana @ Kanhaiya v. The State of Rajasthan 1985 Cr.L.R. Raj. 212 the circumstances were the same. The accused was wearing a Dhoti on which 'B' group blood was found. The blood group on the clothes of the deceased and on the kulhari was also of the same group. In Kana @ Kanhaiya v. The State of Rajasthan 1985 Cr.L.R. Raj. 212 the circumstances were the same. The accused was wearing a Dhoti on which 'B' group blood was found. The blood group on the clothes of the deceased and on the kulhari was also of the same group. This was held to be a strong evidence against the accused and his conviction was maintained. In Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1991 SC 1853 ) , it was held that in absence of blood group of stains, finding of human blood does not become of no consequence when there is direct evidence that accused had inflicted knife blow on deceased; find of human blood corroborates the direct testimony. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to Ex. P. 28 report of the FSL on the slides send to it and it was found to be human semen. We have not been able to find out from where these slides were prepared and how they are connected with the case. The learned Judge has also not referred to it. 15. We have given put thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a case wherein there was no eye witness about the incident but there were eye witnesses about seeing the accused and the, deceased together but all of the them have turned hostile and the only evidence is Ex.P.1 and its author P.W. 1 Jagdish, who has not stated that the information given in the report is incorrect. The witnesses in whose presence the Deranti and clothes of the deceased were recovered have not been examined probably for the fear that they would also turn hostile. It would have been better if they had been examined so that their conduct could have been noticed by the court. One of the witness to the recovery of the clothes was P.W. 2 Munshi but as he turned hostile on other facts, the Public Prosecutor forget to put question to him about the recovery of the clothes of the deceased. Another recovery Witness P.W. 9 Nandan has admitted his signatures on the recovery memo of clothes Ex.P.12 but denied that the police took the clothes of the accused. Another recovery Witness P.W. 9 Nandan has admitted his signatures on the recovery memo of clothes Ex.P.12 but denied that the police took the clothes of the accused. It is apparent therefore, that he has not supported the prosecution version and it cannot be said that no witness to the recovery of clothes has been examined. However, no Witness to the recovery of the Daranti has been examined. This Daranti was recovered from a house which was shared by the accused with his brother Ram Hans, husband of the deceased. The recovery was made soon after the arrest of the appellant. There should be some explanation from the accused of Ram Hans as to how blood stained Daranti reached the place after all this place was not accessible to the public so that any one could leave any weapon. When the appellant lead to its recovery then there is no reason to disbelieve this recovery on the basis of the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Ramhet Sharma. 16. One the recovery of clothes and the weapon is accepted then the presence of 'A' group blood on these items and also on the clothes of the ceased proves the case against that appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 17. We appreciate the labour put in by Shri Sharma, amicus curiae for the appellant but looking to the circumstantial evidence in the case which is of a clinching nature and which cannot be falsified even if all the witnesses turn hostile. We also hold that the case against the appellant is proved. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the Sessions Judge is proper and requires no interference. This appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to serve out his remaining sentence. In case, he does not surrender Within a month, he shall be arrested.Appeal dismissed. *******