Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgements, both dated 7-9-1994 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1989 (State v. Nawab Hussain) and Sessions Case No. 120 of 1990 (State v. Lov Kumar and Abdul Rashid), by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120-B, 404 and 201, I. P. C. As both the appeals relate to the same incident, i. e. , hatching of criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Mangal Singh, commitment of the murder of Mangal Singh, causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence and dishonest misappropriation of the property possessed by deceased Mangal Singh at the time of his death, regarding which the F. I. R. No. 20/1989 was registered at Police Station, Gudda Endla, they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgement. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, which led to the prosecution, trial and conviction of the appellants are that on 6-3-1989, at 9. 30 a. m. , Moda Ram, A. S. I. , Police Station, Gudda Endla heard a rumour that a deadbody of a Sikh smeared with blood is lying on the high-way beyond Jetpura crossing towards Pali. To confirm this news, he, along with F. C. Narain Ram and F. C. Jodh Singh, went there and at a distance of one furlong from Jetpura crossing, on the high-way near village Digai on the left side of the road, he found a deadbody of a Sikh gentleman aged about fifty years. On inspection he found several sharp-edged injuries on the neck and its nearby region. Injuries were, also, found on the other parts of the dead body. The head and the left hand of the deceased were found crushed. He recovered the dead body, prepared the site plan etc, and, also, recovered the clothes of the deceased. While recovering the clothes of the deceased he found a cash-memo (Ex. P. 24) relating to the sale of diesel by Laxmi Petrol Dealer, I. B. P. Company, NSHA, Samakhali, Kutch. By this bill, diesed was filled in the diesel tank of truck No. DEL 2856. The dead body was later-on found to be that of Mangal Singh. While recovering the clothes of the deceased he found a cash-memo (Ex. P. 24) relating to the sale of diesel by Laxmi Petrol Dealer, I. B. P. Company, NSHA, Samakhali, Kutch. By this bill, diesed was filled in the diesel tank of truck No. DEL 2856. The dead body was later-on found to be that of Mangal Singh. A case (FIR No. 20/1989) under Sections 302/201-B, I. P. C. was registered at Police Station, Gudda Endla. The investigation was thereafter transferred to Pritam Singh, S. H. O. , Police Station, Sadar, Pali. During the investigation, it was revealed that the present two appellants, who were the driver and the cleaner on the truck No. DEL 2856 owned by deceased Mangal Singh, were responsible for the commission of the crimes. Appellant Nawab Hussain was arrested on 9-3-1989. After completion of the investigation, challan against him was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali and accused-appellant Nawab Hussain was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pali to stand the trial Accused-appellant Lov Kumar was absconding and, therefore, the charge-sheet against him was, also, submitted but his trial could not commence along with accused-appellant Nawab Hussain. Appellant Lov Kumar was arrested on 23-8-1989 and thereafter a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted and along with Lov Kumar, Haji Abdul Rashid was, also, charge-sheeted for offence under Section 411, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial in both the Session Cases separately. In Sessions Case No. 41 of 1989, Nawab Hussain was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120-B, 201 and 404, I. P. C. The prosecution, in support of its case, examine thirty-two witnesses. The accused did not examined any witness in his defence. The learned trial Court, after trial, convicted appellant Nawab Hussain for the offences under Sections302/34, 120-B, 201 and 404, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections302/34, I. P. C. ; three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 404, I. P. C. ; and three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 404, I. P. C. ; and three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Section 201, I. P. C. He, however, did not pass any sentence for the offence under Section 120-B, I. P. C. separately as the sentence has already been awarded for the main offence under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 4 ) IN Sessions Case No. 120 of 1990 (State v. Lov Kumar and Haji Abdul Rashid) accused-appellant Lov Kumar was tried for the offences under Sections 302/34, 201, 120-B, and 404, I. P. C. while accused Haji Abdul Rashid was tried for the offences under Section 411, I. P. C. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirty-five witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted accused Haji Abdul Rashid of the offence under Section 411, I. P. C. as according to him the prosecution has failed to prove the case against him. He, however, convicted accused Lov Kumar for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120-B, 201 and 404, I. P. C. and awarded the same sentence as were awarded to accused-appellant Nawab Hussain. It is against these judgements passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali that the appellants have preferred these appeals. He, however, convicted accused Lov Kumar for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120-B, 201 and 404, I. P. C. and awarded the same sentence as were awarded to accused-appellant Nawab Hussain. It is against these judgements passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali that the appellants have preferred these appeals. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable manner of doubt that (i) the dead body found lying on the high-way near village Digai was that of Mangal Singh; (ii) the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned Sessions Judge have neither been established beyond reasonable manner of doubt nor are they conclusively of the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused-appellants; (iii) the chain of circumstances is not complete and the circumstances which are neither of conclusive nature nor of definite tendency establishing the guilt of the appellants have been believed by the trial Court; (iv) the evidence of the last seen of the deceased with the appellants is not established; (v) no identification parade was conducted of the appellants by the prosecution before the trial; and (vi) there is no evidence showing that the scrap, which was sold by the accused-appellants to the witnesses, was belonging to deceased Mangal Singh. The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have supported the judgements passed by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) IN Sessions Case No. 41 of 1989 (State v. Nawab Hussain) the prosecution examined thirty-two witnesses while in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1990 (State v. Lov Kumar and Haji Abdul Rashid) the prosecution examined thirty-five witnesses. Thirty witnesses are common in both these cases except the Prosecution Witness (P. W.) numbers but their statements have been recorded separately. Thirty witnesses are common in both these cases except the Prosecution Witness (P. W.) numbers but their statements have been recorded separately. Two witnesses (P. W. 4) and Ramji Lal (P. W. 5) are uncommon witnesses produced in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1989 while P. W. 1 Heera Ram, P. W. 2 Rajesh Puri, P. W. 3 Gafoor Khan, P. W. 4 Roop Singh and P. W. 33 Dault Singh are uncommon witnesses produced in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1990 (State v. Lov Kumar), Since the evidence of the prosecution witnesses witnesses is identical and the same in both the cases, therefore, while considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the names and number of Prosecution Witness (P. W. Number) in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1989 (State v. Nawab Hussain) will be mentioned and those of Lov Kumars case, in case the P. W. numbers are different, they will be hereinafter referred in brackets. ( 8 ) THERE is no eye witness of the occurrence. The prosecution has relied upon only the circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting and sentencing the appellants believed ten circumstances against them. We have, therefore, to see : whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned Sessions Judge are conclusive in nature and have been fully established; the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the trial Court is of such a nature which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused-appellant and exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence and the accused-appellants ? ( 9 ) THE first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the circumstance of last seen of the deceased in the company of the accused-appellants. To support this circumstances, the prosecution has produced three witnesses, who had seen the accused-appellant in the company of the deceased on 2-3-1989 at Delhi; and two witnesses have been produced who had seen the accused-appellants in the company of the deceased in the truck at Paota Baori when the truck was proceeding towards Kandla. P. W. 3 Jaswant Singh (P. W. 5) is the son of the deceased. He has stated that his father left Delhi in his truck No. DEL 2856 for Kandla. The truck was carrying rice which was booked from Delhi to Kandla. P. W. 3 Jaswant Singh (P. W. 5) is the son of the deceased. He has stated that his father left Delhi in his truck No. DEL 2856 for Kandla. The truck was carrying rice which was booked from Delhi to Kandla. At the time when he left Delhi, driver Lov Kumar and cleaner Nawab Hussain were with his father in the truck. His friend Ranveer Singh, also, accompanied them in the truck as he was going to his crusher. P. W. 6 Ranveer Singh (P. W. 6) is the friend of P. W. 3 Jaswant Singh - the son of the deceased. He has stated that on 2-3-1989, deceased Mangal Singh, in his truck carrying the rice, left Nazafgurh, Delhi for Kandla. When he left Delhi, he also accompanied him in the truck as he had to go to the turn of Kapaseda which is nearer to his stone crusher situated at Rajopuri. P. W. 13 Jasveer Singh - the other son of the deceased - has stated that his father Mangal Singh was murdered on 6-3-1989. He left Delhi on 2-3-1989 at 8. 00/9. 00 p. m. in truck No. DEL 2856. The truck was carrying rice which were booked for Kandla (Gujarat ). When the truck left Delhi, the driver of that truck was accused Lov Kumar and Nawab Hussain alias Pappu was its cleaner. When the truck left Delhi, Ranveer Singh - his friends also sat in the truck along with his father and the accused-appellants. Ranveer Singh had to go to his crusher situated near the turn of Kapaseda. On 6-3-1989 he received a telephonic call that his father has been murdered and he, therefore, went to Pali. P. W. 7 Jagmal is a resident of village Paota Baori, whose shop is situated near a hotel. He stated that on 2-3-1989 deceased Mangal Singh came to Baori in a truck from Delhi side and parked the truck near hotel by the side of his shop. Accused Lov Kumar and Nawab Hussain were, also, in the truck. At this time Narain, Suresh and Ramdeo were, also, present there. P. W. 8 Suresh Kumar has stated that he was knowing deceased Mangal Singh, who used to drive a truck. He used to sit in his hotel for taking tea etc. Accused Lov Kumar and Nawab Hussain were, also, in the truck. At this time Narain, Suresh and Ramdeo were, also, present there. P. W. 8 Suresh Kumar has stated that he was knowing deceased Mangal Singh, who used to drive a truck. He used to sit in his hotel for taking tea etc. He has, also, state that when the truck was going from Delhi to Kandla, he had seen both these accused along with Mangal Singh sitting in the truck. From the evidence of these five witnesses, the circumstance of last seen of the deceased on 2-3-89 in the company of the accused-appellants stands fully established. ( 10 ) THE next circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court in the circumstance of taking the diesel in the truck by deceased Mangal Singh at Samdhli (Kutch) on 5-3-1989. P. W. 21 Sunil Kumar (P. W. 22) is the Cashier deputed in Laxmi Petrol Pump, Shyamakhyali (Kutch.) He has stated that he was the Cashier appointed at the aforesaid petrol pump and Ex. P. 24 bears his signatures A to B. He handed over the cash memo to the person who purchased the petrol. Ex. P. 05 (Ex. P. 24) (the original has been placed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1989 and a photostatcopy thereof has been placed in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1990) is the Cash Memo showing the sale of 219 litres of high-speed diesel to truck No. DEL 2856 for an amount of Rs. 869. 43 p. and one litre of oil an amount of Rs. 16. 56 p. This cash memo Ex. P. 5 (Ex. P. 24) was recovered from the clothes of the deceased by P. W. 2 Moda Ram (P. W. 18), A. S. I. when he recovered the dead body and prepared the site plan etc. P. W. 2 Moda Ram (P. W. 18) has stated that in the pocket of the Bandi of the deceased, a receipt of Samakhyali (Kutch) Petrol Pump was recovered which is Ex. P. 5 (Ex. P. 24) and the same was seized by the police. From this evidence this circumstances, also, stands conclusively established. ( 11 ) THE next circumstance relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the recovery of the dead body of deceased Mangal Singh on 6-3-1989 near village Digai. P. 5 (Ex. P. 24) and the same was seized by the police. From this evidence this circumstances, also, stands conclusively established. ( 11 ) THE next circumstance relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the recovery of the dead body of deceased Mangal Singh on 6-3-1989 near village Digai. The dead body was recovered by P. W. 2 Moda Ram (P. W. 18) on 6-3-1989 at 10. 30 a. m. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted on 6-3-1989 at 3. 00 p. m. by P. W. 22 Dr. Ishwari Lal Laskari (P. W. 23 ). According to the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was excessive bleeding due to seventeen injuries received by the deceased. The duration of the death of the deceased, given by the doctor, is within twelve hours. The dead body of the deceased was identified by the sons of the deceased after identifying and verifying the clothes though the face of the deceased was badly crushed. Thus, this circumstance, also, stands established and the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in believing this circumstance. ( 12 ) THE next circumstance relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is regarding the fact of the truck on 6-3-1989 from Beawar. The prosecution, to prove this circumstance, has produced P. W. 16 Lal Chand (P. W. 17), the Naka Guard, Octroi Check Post, Ajmer Road, Beawar, P. W. 17 Mohammed Ismail Nakedar, Octroi Check Post, Ajmer Road, Beawar, P. W. 24 Leela Ram, Sub-Nakedar and P. W. 18 Ram Babu Sharma, Nakedar posted at the relevant time at the Octroi Check Post, Sendra Road, Beawar. These witnesses have stated that truck No. DEL 2856 crossed from Beawar on 6-3-1989 at 10. 30 a. m. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it, therefore, stands established that the truck No. DEL 2856, after entering Sendra Road Check Post, crossed Beawar town and Ajmer Road Check Post on 6-3-1989 at 10. 30 a. m. and. One Balveer Singh got issued the receipt regarding payment of octroi duty. 30 a. m. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it, therefore, stands established that the truck No. DEL 2856, after entering Sendra Road Check Post, crossed Beawar town and Ajmer Road Check Post on 6-3-1989 at 10. 30 a. m. and. One Balveer Singh got issued the receipt regarding payment of octroi duty. ( 13 ) THE next circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the return of accused-appellant Lov Kumar and appellant Nawab Hussain at Paota Baori on 6-3-1989 and the sale of iron scrap loaded on the truck for an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to P. W. 7 Jagmal, P. W. 8 Suresh and P. W. 12 Ram Deo. P. W. 7 Jagmal has stated that Lov Kumar and Pappu alias Nawab Hussain, who had gone to Kandla in the truck on 2-3-1989 returned on 6/7th of the same month. They were carrying iron scrap in the truck. Ramdeo, Suresh and Narain were, also, sitting by his side. He enquired from Lov Kumar where Mangal Singh has stayed, upon which Lov Kumar informed that he (Mangal Singh) stayed at Kandla for some work. He further informed him that Mangal Singh has sent the scrap in the truck for sale. He said that they have no money to purchase whole of the scrap, whereupon Lov Kumar told them that they may pay the amount whatever is with them and the remaining amount may be paid within a week. They, therefore, purchased whole of the iron scrap in Rs. 60,000/ -. Rs. 30,000/- were given in cash to Lov Kumar and remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- was promised to be paid within a week thereafter. He thereafter sold the scrap to Basanti Lal with a profit of 10 paise per kilogram. Lov Kumar thereafter never came to recover that amount and the amount was recovered by the police. Out of the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/ -. Rs. 15,000/- were recovered from him and Rs. 15,000/- were recovered from Suresh. P. W. 8 Suresh Kumar has stated that he purchased the iron scrap from the accused present in the Court (viz. , accused Lov Kumar and Nawab Hussain ). They brought the iron scrap in the truck of deceased Mangal Singh. When he purchased the scrap, Mangal Singh was not in the truck. 15,000/- were recovered from Suresh. P. W. 8 Suresh Kumar has stated that he purchased the iron scrap from the accused present in the Court (viz. , accused Lov Kumar and Nawab Hussain ). They brought the iron scrap in the truck of deceased Mangal Singh. When he purchased the scrap, Mangal Singh was not in the truck. He, Jagmal, Narain and Ramdeo collectively purchased the iron scrap in Rs. 60,000/ -. It is purchased @ Rs. 3. 60 p. per kilo. Rs. 30,000/- were paid to the accused at that time and the balance of Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid within a week thereafter, which amount was recovered by the police. P. W. 12 Ramdeo is, also, a resident of Paota Baori, who purchased the iron scrap from the accused. He has stated that the accused came to Paota in the truck of Mangal Singh. They were carrying scrap. When the scrap was sold, Mangal Singh was not with them. On enquiry being made by Jagmal : where Mangal Singh remained, the accused informed him that Mangal Singh has stayed at Kandla. He, also, informed that the scrap has been sent by Mangal Singh and they may unload it. They purchased the scrap. Rs. 30,000/- were paid to the accused at that time and the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid after a week. He has further stated that the scrap was weighed at Paota. P. W. 10 Ghan Shyam is an employee of Vishvakarma Dharam Kanta, Paota, at whose weighbridge the truck was weighed on 6-3-1989. He has stated that on 6-3-1989, he weighed the truck No. DEL 2856 at the Dharamkanta known as "vishvakarma Dharam Kanta, Paota" where he was employed on that day. The truck was carrying iron scrap. He identified accused Lov Kumar as the driver of the truck and Nawab Hussain at its cleaner. He has further stated that both the accused were in the truck when the truck was being weighed. Along with these accused, Jagmal, Suresh and Narain were, also, there. The truck along with the scrap was weighed at 23. 860 tonnes and the empty truck was weighing 70 quintals 20 kgs. and the weight of the scrap was 16 tonnes 840 kgs. He issued the receipt Ex. P. 24 (Ex. P. 7 ). Along with these accused, Jagmal, Suresh and Narain were, also, there. The truck along with the scrap was weighed at 23. 860 tonnes and the empty truck was weighing 70 quintals 20 kgs. and the weight of the scrap was 16 tonnes 840 kgs. He issued the receipt Ex. P. 24 (Ex. P. 7 ). P. W. 11 Basanti Lal is the person who purchased the iron scrap from Narain and Jagmal on 7-3-1989. The evidence of these five witnesses clearly establish this circumstance that the accused-appellant came with the truck from Kandla to Paota on 6-3-1989 in the truck No. DEL 2856 and at that time deceased Mangal Singh was not with them and the accused sold the iron scrap of Jagmal, Suresh and Ramdeo by asking them that Mangal Singh has sent the scarp. ( 14 ) THE next circumstance relied upon by prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court is the recovery of Rs. 30,000/- from the house of accused-appellant Lov Kumar on 9-3-1989 on the information and at the instance of Nawab Hussain and the recovery of Rs. 15,000/- from Suresh Kumar and Rs. 15,000/- from Jagmal by the police on 11-3-1989. The recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the house of appellant Lov Kumar has been denied by Lov Kumars wife P. W. 23 Smt. Kailash Rani but from the evidence of P. W. 9 Nand Kishore and P. W. 28 Pritam Singh, who recovered the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the house of appellant Lov Kumar as well as the recoveries of Rs. 15,000/- from Suresh Kumar and Rs. 15,000/- from Jagmal, stand established. ( 15 ) THE next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court in the conduct of the accused-appellants is not leaving the truck at the house of the deceased and not returning the sale-proceeds of the iron scrap to the sons of the deceased. This circumstance, also, stands established and reflects the guilty-conduct of the accused-appellants. This circumstance, also, stands established and reflects the guilty-conduct of the accused-appellants. If the accused-appellant would have left Mangal Singh at Kandla and brought to scrap from there then their natural conduct would have been that they should have handed-over the sale-proceeds of the iron scrap to the family members of the deceased and, also, should have left the truck at the house of Mangal Singh, but they gulped-down the sale-proceeds and even took away the truck and sold it thereafter. This conduct of the accused-appellants is, also, a circumstance which can be read against them and was rightly believed by the learned trial Court. ( 16 ) THESE are the circumstances which have been relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court against both the accused-appellants and these circumstances are of conclusive nature and stand fully established against the accused-appellants. These circumstances are of definite tendency and establish the guilt of the accused-appellants. They are consistent only with the hypothesis that these were the accused-appellants Lov Kumar and Nawab Hussain who have committed the murder of Mangal Singh and after committing his murder, threw his dead body on the road and thereafter passed the wheels of the truck over him, crushed his face and other parts of the body. The learned Sessions Judge has thus not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants. ( 17 ) APART from these circumstances, the learned trial Court has, also, relied upon one circumstance each against the appellant. One more circumstance relied upon against accused-appellant Nawab Hussain is the injuries found on his person and the recovery of the blood-stained clothes when he was arrested. This circumstance, though proved, if of no consequence and does not connect the accused-appellant with the crime. The other circumstance relied-upon by the learned trial Court against appellant Lov Kumar is that he remained absconding for about five months. Lov Kumar reached Delhi on 6-9-1989. He did not leave the truck at the house of Mangal Singh. He, also, did not make payment of the sale-proceed of iron scrap to the heirs of the deceased. He sold the truck, also, and absconded. These conducts accused-appellant Lov Kumar, in these circumstances, are established from the evidence available on record and were rightly believed by the learned trial Court against him. He, also, did not make payment of the sale-proceed of iron scrap to the heirs of the deceased. He sold the truck, also, and absconded. These conducts accused-appellant Lov Kumar, in these circumstances, are established from the evidence available on record and were rightly believed by the learned trial Court against him. ( 18 ) FROM the evidence produced by the prosecution, the offences under Sections 404, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, also, stand established. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence in the right perspective and the appreciation of the evidence made by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper. All the charges against the accused-appellants, therefore, stand established beyond reasonable manner of doubt. ( 19 ) THE dead body recovered by P. W. 2 Moda Ram (P. W. 18) near village Degai, on the National Highway, was that of Mangal Singh, which stands established from the evidence of his two sons P. W. 3 Jashwant Singh (P. W. 5) and P. W. 13 Jasveer Singh. The clothes worn by the deceased and recovered from the dead body were identified as those of deceased Mangal Singh by his son P. W. 13 Jasveer Singh. The recovery of cash memo from the Bandi which the deceased was wearing at the time of his death, showing the purchase of diesel for truck No. DEL 2856 from Laxmi Petrol Pump, Shyamkhykali (Kutch) also lend an assurance that the dead body was that of deceased Mangal Singh who was the owner of the truck No. DEL 2856 and had gone from Delhi to Kandla. Each of the circumstances believed by the learned trial Court stands fully established from the evidence on record and all the circumstances believed by the learned trial Court complete the chain and conclusively prove the guilt of the accused-appellants. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the established/proved circumstances is that the accused-appellants were the perpetrators of the crime. ( 20 ) THE accused-appellants were known to the witnesses, viz. , P. W. 2 Jaswant Singh (P. W. 5), P. W. 6 Ranveer Singh, P. W. 13 Jasveer Singh, P. W. 7 Jagmal, P. W. 8 Suresh and P. W. 12 Ramdeo before the incident. ( 20 ) THE accused-appellants were known to the witnesses, viz. , P. W. 2 Jaswant Singh (P. W. 5), P. W. 6 Ranveer Singh, P. W. 13 Jasveer Singh, P. W. 7 Jagmal, P. W. 8 Suresh and P. W. 12 Ramdeo before the incident. The accused were working on the truck of deceased Mangal Singh and often used to go in the truck of the deceased as the driver and the cleaner. When the accused were known to the witnesses even before the date of the incident, therefore, there was no necessity of holding an identification parade. Identification parade is necessary only when the accused were not known to the witnesses previously. From the evidence of P. W. 7 Jagmal, P. W. 8 Suresh Kumar and P. W. 12 Ramdeo, to whom the accused sold the iron scrap, it, also, stands established that the scrap belonged to deceased Mangal Singh. The accused, also, informed the witnesses at the time of sale of the scrap that it was sent by the deceased. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are, therefore, bereft of any substance. 20a. The totality of the circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and established by the evidence produced by the prosecution, complete the chain and conclusively establish that the accused-appellants were the perpetators of the crime. The circumstances point towards the only hypothesis that the murder of Mangal Singh has been committed by the appellants alone. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid offences. The judgement passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, does not require any interference. ( 21 ) IN the result, we do not find any merit in these two appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.