K. S. Gupta,j. ( 1 ) NISSAR @ Pappu and Ram Kishan @ Rammu have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated April 29, 1992 by an Additional Sessions Judge and by an order of even date they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 each, in default of payment of fine they are further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Nissar @ Pappu has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing criminal appeal No. 72/92. Ram Kishan @ Rammu too has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing criminal appeal No. 163/92. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment/order, we propose to dispose them of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is that while working as Duty Officer, P. S. Gandhi Nagar, on February 14, 1989 SI Satya Singh Public Witness 8 at about 8. 30 AM received information on telephone from Lady Constable Rekha Rani of PCR in regard to a dead body kept in gunny bag lying in front of house No. 9/23, Kailash Nagar, near Yamuna Pushta. Tthis information was recorded by Public Witness 8 in Daily Diary A at serial No. 3 and a copy thereof Ex. PW8/a was made over to SI Devi Dayal Public Witness 16 for inquiry. On receipt of Public Witness 8/a, Public Witness 16 alongwith Constables Om Vir Singh Public Witness 6 and Ram Hari Pathak Public Witness 12 reached the said place and found a dead body there having injuries on the throat and the other parts of the body contained in a gunny bag. After making endorsement Ex. PW8/b on Ex. PW8/a, Public Witness 16 sent it for registration of a case to the Police Station through Public Witness 12 and on the basis thereof FIR No. 44/89 (carbon copy Ex. PW8/c) was recorded by Public Witness 8. On personal search of the dead body by Public Witness 16 a passbook of Syndicate Bank in the name of Inderjit Singh Ex. PW16/b was recovered and the same was taken into possession vide memo No. PW16/a. Inquest proceedings were conducted by Public Witness 16 and the dead body was sent for post-mortem through Public Witness s 6 and 12. On personal search of the dead body by Public Witness 16 a passbook of Syndicate Bank in the name of Inderjit Singh Ex. PW16/b was recovered and the same was taken into possession vide memo No. PW16/a. Inquest proceedings were conducted by Public Witness 16 and the dead body was sent for post-mortem through Public Witness s 6 and 12. Autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. L. T. Ramani Public Witness 4 on February 15, 1989 and Ex. PW4/a is the post-mortem report. In the opinion of Dr. L. T. Ramani Public Witness 4 death was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation. On February 14, 1989 dead body came to be identified that of Inderjit by Bhim Sen Public Witness 10 and Rattan Lal Public Witness 1. Public Witness 16 recorded the statement of Smt. Om Vati Public Witness 2, wife of the deceased. Further investigation of the case was taken up from Devi Dayal Public Witness 16 by R. L. Meena SHO P. S. Gandhi Nagar Public Witness 13 on February 15, 1989. On February 16, 1989 Public Witness 13 arrested accused Sunder Kumar (since dead) and Nissar. While in police custody on February 16, 1989, Nissar made a disclosure statement Ex. PW13/c and pursuant thereto he got recovered a wrist watch (make HMT) Ex. P2 from a box kept in the tea shop. After converting into a parcel and sealing with the seal of dds wrist watch Ex. P2 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW13/f. Case of the prosecution further is that accused Ram Kishan was arrested from near Swarn Cinema on February 24, 1989. He too made a disclosure statement Ex. PW13/j and in pursuance thereof handed over a silver ring Ex. P3 after taking out of the pocket of his pant to Public Witness 13. This ring also after converting into a parcel and sealing with the seal of dds was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW13/h. Wrist watch Ex. P2 and the silver ring Ex. P3 came to be identified that of the deceased. Material exhibits were sent to CFSL and on completition of investigation charge-sheet was filed against both the said accused and Sunder Kumar. ( 3 ) IN their statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. plea taken by both the accused Nissar and Ram Kishan is of plain denial. P3 came to be identified that of the deceased. Material exhibits were sent to CFSL and on completition of investigation charge-sheet was filed against both the said accused and Sunder Kumar. ( 3 ) IN their statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. plea taken by both the accused Nissar and Ram Kishan is of plain denial. ( 4 ) CASE of the prosecution rests on the last seen evidence as well as the recoveries of the wrist watch Ex. P2 on the pointing out of accused Nissar on February 16, 1989 and production of the silver ring Ex. P3 by accused Ram Kishan on February 24, 1989. ( 5 ) LAST seen evidence consists of the sole statement of Smt. Om Vati Public Witness 2. She has deposed that she alongwith her husband Inderjit had been running a tea stall in a portion of their house and about two years back at 6 or 6. 30 PM when both of them were present at the tea stall, Sunder, Ram Kishan and Nissar accused came there. She knew Sunder and Ram Kishan as they had been coming to their tea stall and Ram Kishan also resided in their locality. Accused called her husband and had conversation with him. Her husband accompanied the accused persons and he also took along a cycle which was parked outside the tea stall. Thereafter her husband did not return. He was wearing a watch (make HMT) and a ring of silver. On the following day in noon time she came to know that the dead body of her husband kept in a gunny bag was recovered by the police and she also identified the same. Ex. P2 is the watch while Ex. P3 is the ring belonging to her husband. When cross-examined on behalf of accused Nissar, she has deposed that her husband left at about 8 AM; that they generally open the tea stall at about 5 or 6 AM and on that date customers did not visit the tea stall for taking tea upto 8 AM. It was suggested to her that her husband did not leave the tea stall at 8 AM alongwith accused persons which she denied emphatically. It may be noticed that in her examination-in-chief Public Witness 2 gave the time of her husband leaving in the company of the accused persons as 6 or 6. It was suggested to her that her husband did not leave the tea stall at 8 AM alongwith accused persons which she denied emphatically. It may be noticed that in her examination-in-chief Public Witness 2 gave the time of her husband leaving in the company of the accused persons as 6 or 6. 30 PM while in her cross-examination she asserted that the deceased left with them at about 8 AM. Had the deceased left with the accused persons in the presence of Public Witness 2 she must not have committed the mistake in telling if the deceased left either in the evening or morning. Public Witness 2 s statement, thus, does not inspire confidence and has to be discarded being the last seen evidence. ( 6 ) COMING to the alleged recoveries, wrist watch Ex. P2 is stated to have been got recovered from a box by accused Nissar on February 16, 1989 while silver ring Ex. P3 is alleged to have been produced by accused Ram Kishan from his pocket on February 24, 1989. Case of the prosecution is that both the said accused were apprehended by Public Witness 13 on the dates the recoveries of the said articles were got made by them. Rattan Lal, who is the cousin of deceased Inderjit, as Public Witness 1 in cross-examination has stated that on February 14, 1989 he saw all the three accused persons in police custody and he was also shown the recovered cycle, watch and the silver ring by the police at the Police Station. He is one of the relatives by whom the dead body of the deceased was identified at Subzi Mandi Mortuary on February 14, 1989. Smt. Om Vati Public Witness 2 in cross-examination has deposed that on the following day of the recovery of the dead body, wrist watch recovered from accused Nissar was shown to her at the Police Station and she identified the same. Indisputably date of recovery of the body of Inderjit is February 14, 1989. Wrist watch Ex. P2 was, thus, shown by the police to Public Witness 2 on February 15, 1989 on which date same was identified by her as belonging to the deceased. If the wrist watch Ex. Indisputably date of recovery of the body of Inderjit is February 14, 1989. Wrist watch Ex. P2 was, thus, shown by the police to Public Witness 2 on February 15, 1989 on which date same was identified by her as belonging to the deceased. If the wrist watch Ex. P2 was seen by Public Witness 1 on February 14, 1989 and by Public Witness 2 on February 15, 1989 at the Police Station, how could that have been got recovered by accused Nissar, who was apprehended on February 16, 1989, pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex. PW13/c as alleged by the prosecution. ( 7 ) AS regards recovery of the silver ring Ex. P3, after effecting arrest of an accused first thing which the police do is to take his personal search under Section 51 Criminal Procedure Code. Story of the prosecution is that after arrest accused Ram Kishan made a disclosure statement Ex. PW13/g and pursuant thereto produced the silver ring Ex. P3 from his pocket to R. L. Meena Public Witness 13 on February 24, 1989. Stage of making disclosure statement would come only after the personal search of an accused is taken. Therefore, the search of the right pocket of the pant worn by the said accused from which he is alleged to have taken out the silver ring Ex. P3, would have yielded silver ring Ex. P3 before he made the alleged disclosure statement Ex. PW13/g to Public Witness 13. Further in the seizure memo Ex. PW13/h weight of the silver ring Ex. P3 has been shown equivalent to 8 annas. Estimated market value of the ring in question as on date may be approximately Rs. 50. 00. In 1989, value thereof must be less than that. It does not appeal to reasons that an accused committing heinous offence of murder would continue to keep a ring of the value of even less than Rs. 50. 00 even after ten days of the commission of the offence so as to create evidence against him. Moreover, as stated earlier, Ram Kishan accused and the ring were seen by Rattan Lal Public Witness 1 with the police even on February 14, 1989. That be so, how could the silver ring Ex. P3 could have been produced by the said accused from the pocket of his pant on February 24, 1989 as alleged. Moreover, as stated earlier, Ram Kishan accused and the ring were seen by Rattan Lal Public Witness 1 with the police even on February 14, 1989. That be so, how could the silver ring Ex. P3 could have been produced by the said accused from the pocket of his pant on February 24, 1989 as alleged. ( 8 ) AT the time accused Nissar was apprehended on February 16, 1989, SI Devi Dayal Public Witness 16 was with Inspector R. L. Meena Public Witness 13. It is in the cross-examination of Public Witness 13 that the said accused alongwith Sunder Kumar was apprehended while sitting on a rickshaw at the rickshaw stand, Vikas Marg, near Swarn Cinema. However, according to Public Witness 13, both of them were apprehended from near the Tanki where one of the accused, namely, Nissar was running a tea shop. Apart from that inconsistency, as per the depositions of both Public Witness s 13 and 16 at the time wrist watch Ex. P2 and the silver ring Ex. P3 were recovered, letters ij were inscribed on them but while recording statement of Smt. Om Vati Public Witness 2 trial court observed that letters is instead of ij were inscribed thereon. How that change in one of those letters came to occur is still shrouded in mystery. ( 9 ) FROM the foregoing discussion it must follow that neither wrist watch Ex. P2 was recovered at the instance of accused Nissar on February 16, 1989 nor silver ring Ex. P3 was produced by accused Ram Kishan to Public Witness 13 on February 24, 1989 and the recoveries of both these articles have been falsely attributed to them. ( 10 ) THERE is, thus, absolutely no material to record the finding of guilt under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code against both the said accused and the impugned judgment and order, therefore, cannot be legally sustained. ( 11 ) BOTH the appeals are, therefore, allowed. Impugned judgment and order are set aside and Nissar and Ram Kishan, appellants, who are on bail, are acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.