Honble JAIN, J. – This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 5.8.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by which,the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants Mohd. Anis and Mustaq Ahmed for the offences under ss. 364, 387 and 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years together with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months for the offence under s. 364 IPC; to 5 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Ss. 387 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaultof payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under s. 302 iPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz was residing in Amarnath Building, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur on the date of the occurrencealongwith his wife P.W. 6 Mst. Shamim Bano, his son Ezaz, his daughter P.W. 5 Soniya and his brother Abdul Gaffar and his wife P.W. 8 Mst. Sunnat Bano. Accused Mustaq Ahmed is his uncles son and accused Mohd. Anis is the friend of Mustaq Ahmed. On account of near relationship, Mustaq Ahamed often used to visit Abdul Aziz and his family. Both the accused were residing at Ahemedabad. (3). It is alleged that on 20.11.1993, accused Mustaq Ahmed and his friend Mohd. Anis came to the house of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz in the evening. Abdul Aziz took them to his house and after taking the dinner, they proceeded to Pali. They returned back from Pali on 21.11.1993 at 11.00 A.M. They took lunch with Abdul Azia at about 2.00 PM or 2.30 PM and then Abdul Aziz left for his office. Accused-persons reaminedbehind in the house of Abdul Aziz. Both the accused were playing with Ezaz, the son of Abdul Aziz. At about 3.00 PM on 21.11.1993, Abdul Aziz received a telephonic message from his wife P.W. 6 Shamim Bano that Exaz was not traceable. On this, Abdul Aziz assured his wife that he must be playing in the house or in the neighbourhood. Both the accused were playing with Ezaz, the son of Abdul Aziz. At about 3.00 PM on 21.11.1993, Abdul Aziz received a telephonic message from his wife P.W. 6 Shamim Bano that Exaz was not traceable. On this, Abdul Aziz assured his wife that he must be playing in the house or in the neighbourhood. He further informed that Ezaz was not in the Office. After some-time,Abdul Aziz returned to his house as Ezaz was not found even after making efforts to trace him out. When Abdul Aziz came to his house, he did not find the accused-persons there. On enquiry, his wife P.W. 6 Shamim Bano told him that at about 2.30 PM. the accused wanted to take Ezaz with them for Ice Cream and Frooty but when P.W. 5 Soniya brought this fact to the notice of her mother P.W. 6 Shamim Bano,she did not allow Ezaz to go with the accused-persons on the ground that on account of the use of cold drinks, Ezaz suffers from cold and becomes ill. Soniya accordingly called the accused-persons and they came to the house alongwith Ezaz. Thereafter, Abdul Aziz and his family members made efforts to search Ezaz. In the meantime, at about 5.30 PM, accused Mustaq Ahmed again came to the houseof Abdul Aziz. Abdul Aziz and his family members enquired about Ezaz and Mustaq told them that Ezaz did not accompany them. Mustaq then told that since he was feeling uneasy, he was going to Public Park for a change. (4). It is alleged that four telephonic calls in respect of Ezaz were received. The first telephonic call was attended by P.W. 9 Jahan Aara at about 5.30 PM; thesecond was attended by P.W. 8 Sunnat Bano at about 7.00 PM and the third was attended by P.W. 11 Mahmood Khan in the office of Abdul Aziz and the fourth was attended by P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz at 9.45 PM. On all the telephonic calls, it was threatened to Abdul Aziz and his family members that Ezaz was in their custody, to get him free from their custody, they will have to pay ransom amount of Rs. 1 lakhto them and in case, any complaint was lodged in the police, Ezaz would be killed. It is alleged that Jahan Aara, Sunnat Bano, Mahmood Khan and Abdul Aziz all recognised the voice of Mustaq Ahmed. 1 lakhto them and in case, any complaint was lodged in the police, Ezaz would be killed. It is alleged that Jahan Aara, Sunnat Bano, Mahmood Khan and Abdul Aziz all recognised the voice of Mustaq Ahmed. When all the efforts to trace out Ezaz were proved futile, Abdul Ezaz lodged a written report Ex. P.1 at Police Station, Sardarpura on 21.11.1993 at 11.30PM. (5). It is alleged that in the meantime, P.W. 18 Murlidhar, Circle Officer, Police Station Sardarpura received a message from Control Room on 21.11.1993 at about 6.25 PM regarding missing of Ezaz. He, therefore, deputed ASI Mahendra Singh to search out the boy. At about 9.20 PM, he also received a telephonic message from P.W. 1 Abdul Azaz that threatenings regarding abduction of Ezaz and demand ofransom amount of Rs. 1 lakh for his release were received. It was also informed to him that Abdul Ezaz was threatened that in case the ransom amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was not made available at Ahemdabad and the Police was informed about this fact, Ezaz would be killed. On this, P.W. 18 Circle Officer Murlidhar wrote a letter Ex. P. 37 to the District Telephone Manager, Jodhpur for monitoring telephone of AbdulAziz. The D.T.M. directed to keep the telephone of Abdul Aziz under observations but no telephonic calls were made thereafter :– (6). The prosecution case further is that on 21.11.1993, at about 8.00 PM, both the accused again came to the house of Abdul Aziz and told him that they were proceeding to Ahemdabad by a Video Coach Bus. Abdul Aziz entertained some sus- picion and, therefore, he deputed his brother-in-law P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and his maternal uncle P.W. 15 Abid Hussain to check the bus. Mohd. Iqbal and Abid Hussain found that the accused-persons did not board the video coach bus and therefore, they went to the Railway Station and checked the Super Fast Train and found that both the accused-persons were standing near the gate of the Rail-Coach. Since they did not find Ezaz with the accused-persons, they returned back to Abdul Aziz and narrated to him the whole facts. Thereafter, Abdul Aziz and his relatives made desperate efforts to trace out Ezaz but they could not succeed. (7). Since they did not find Ezaz with the accused-persons, they returned back to Abdul Aziz and narrated to him the whole facts. Thereafter, Abdul Aziz and his relatives made desperate efforts to trace out Ezaz but they could not succeed. (7). It is alleged that P.W. 21 Manohar Singh, S.H.O. Police Station, Udaimandirreceived a telephonic message from Shanti Bhawan Lodge that a dead body of a child was lying in Room No. 115. He was further informed that two persons came from Ahemdabad and stayed in that Room. Since the report was incomplete, he himself went to Shanti Bhawan Lodge and also informed P.W. 18 Murlidhar to reach there immediately. When Manoharsingh reached Shanti Bhawan Lodge and enteredinto the Room No. 115, he was greeted with ghastly spectacle. The dead body of a handsome child aged 5-6 years was lying on the double bed. Since there was a report of Abdul Aziz about the missing of Ezaz, Abdul Aziz was also asked the reach Shanti Bhawan Lodge. Abdul Aziz, his father-in-law Mehmood, his brother-in-law Mohd. Iqbal and other members of the family reached Shanti Bhawan Lodge andsaw the dead body of the child. Abdul Aziz at once recognised that dead body to be of Ezaz. (8). When investigation was made from the Staff of Shanti Bhawan, Lodge, it was revealed that since the accused wanted to stay in the said Lodge, they contacted the counter clerk P.W.16 Narsingh. The accused wanted a double bedroom and accordingly, P.W. 16 Narsingh allotted Room No. 115. The accused informed that they came from Ahemdabad and would stay for a few days in the Lodge. On this, P.W. 16 Narsingh made an entry regarding allotment of Room No. 115 to the accused in his Register Ex.P. 33. The Room was allotted in the name of `R.R. Solanki as stated by accused Mohd. Anis. Mohd. Anis put his signatures C toD on Ex. P. 33. After his duties were over, P.W. 16 Narsingh handed over charge to P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain and again took the charge on 21.11.1993. Since the key of Room No. 115 was lying unclaimed on the counter, P.W. 16 Narsingh got curious and anxious. He went to Room No. 115, unlocked the same, push the electricity button and saw the dead body of a child lying on the double bed. He immediately calledWaiter P.W. 19 Hardanram. Since the key of Room No. 115 was lying unclaimed on the counter, P.W. 16 Narsingh got curious and anxious. He went to Room No. 115, unlocked the same, push the electricity button and saw the dead body of a child lying on the double bed. He immediately calledWaiter P.W. 19 Hardanram. Thereafter, he locked the room and informed about this incident to the Police. (9). It was further revealed that P.W. 19 Hardanram served meals to the accused in Room No. 115 on 20.11.1993 and 21.11.1993. There were some arguments when the accused were asked to make the payment. It is alleged that accusedMohd. Anis told `Mustaq make the payment Thereupon, the payment was made. In this way, P.W. 19 Hardanram came to know about the name of one person. It was further revealed that Rajeev Jain saw both the accused entering into Room No. 115 alongwith Ezaz at 4.00 PM. He further saw both the accused-persons leaving Room without Ezaz. Rajeev Jain did not pay any attention to this fact at that time. (10). During investigation, it was also told to the Police by P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma, who happened to be a friend of Abdul Hafiz that he came to the house of Abdul Aziz on 21.11.1993 at about 3.15 PM. He often used to visit the house of Abdul Hafiz for the purpose of studies. When he entered into the Pole, he saw both the accused going in the company of Ezaz. Since he was knowing the accused frombefore, he did not suspect anything. He, then went inside the Pole and asked about Abdul Hafiz from his brothers wife but he was told that Abdul Hafiz had gone out. He , therefore, returned back to his house. On the next day when he came to know about the murder of Ezaz he went and told Abdul Aziz about the fact that he had seen Ezaz going in the company of accused-appellants Mohd. Anis and Mustaq Ahmed on 21.11.1993 at about 3.15 PM. (11). After collecting the above incriminating evidence against the accused-persons, the police moved into action and proceeded to Ahemdabad to apprehend the accused-persons. P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain accompanied the Police. Anis and Mustaq Ahmed on 21.11.1993 at about 3.15 PM. (11). After collecting the above incriminating evidence against the accused-persons, the police moved into action and proceeded to Ahemdabad to apprehend the accused-persons. P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain accompanied the Police. It is alleged that when they reached there, they did not find the accused-persons at their house but when they again went to house at about 3.00 PM, the accused-persons on seeing the Police in the company of Mohd. Iqbal and Abid Hussain got nervous. It is alleged that accused Mustaq Ahmed took Mohd. Iqbal and Abid Hussain aside and confessed to have killed Ezaz. At that time, accu-sed Mohd. Anis was also standing there. Both the accused told that they had committed the sin and begged pardon. (12). However, the Police arrested and brought them to Jodhpur. On 25.11.1993, the S.H.O., Sardarpura moved an application for conducting Identification parade and 27.11.1993 was fixed for Identification Parade. On 27.11.1993, P.W.20 Raj Kamal Gaur conducted the identification Parade of the accused and he mixed 10 other persons with the accused. P.W. 16 Narsingh, P.W. 19 Hardanram and P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain were called for identifying the accused-persons one by one. These three witnesses correctly identified both the accused-persons. He prepared the Identification Memos Ex. P. 34 to 35. (13). Thereafter, the Police submitted a chargesheet against the accused-persons in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, who committed the accused to the court of the learned Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges under ss. 302, 364 and 387 IPC against the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges andclaimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under S. 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused denied all the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution against them. They alleged that the Police showed them to the witnesses before the actual identification parade was conducted. In defence,the accused-appellants have produced D.W. 1 Yakub Khan to prove the plea of alibi. According to D.W. 1 Yakub Khan, the accused remained at Dariyapur with him from the morning of 20.11.1992 to the whole night of that day. (14). After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Addl. In defence,the accused-appellants have produced D.W. 1 Yakub Khan to prove the plea of alibi. According to D.W. 1 Yakub Khan, the accused remained at Dariyapur with him from the morning of 20.11.1992 to the whole night of that day. (14). After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge analysed the prosecution evidence and came to the conclusion thatthe whole prosecution case hinges on the circumstantial evidence. He also culled out all the possible circumstances sought to be proved against the accused and held that the prosecution succeeded in proving all the circumstance beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. He, therefore, held the accused-appellants guilty of the above offences and sentenced them as aforesaid. (15). We have heard Mr. Monudeen, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants and Mrs. Chandralekha, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. (16). It may be stated here that there is no direct evidence on the record against the accused-appellants. The whole prosecution case is based on circum-stantial evidence. Before we proceed to appreciate the rival submissions made at the bar, we would like to mention the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused-appellants. Those circumstances are as follows : 1. That the accused-appellants visited P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz on the date of the occurrence and they remained in the house of Abdul Aziz on and played with Ezaz. They also tried to lure the child for Ice Cream and Frooty but their first attempt was aborted when P.W. 5 Soniya intervened on the instructions of her mother P.W. 7 Mst. Shamim Bano and they were called back. 2. That the accused-appellants were last seen in the company of Ezaz while proceeding from the house of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz by P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma. 3. That the movements of the accused-appellants on the date of the occurrence were suspicious inasmuch as they left the house of Abdul Aziz at about 8.00 PM saying that they were proceeding to Ahemdabad by a Video Coach Bus but in fact, they proceeded to Ahemdabad by Super Fast Train. On the instructions of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz, P.W. 13 Mohd. Hussain and P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal went after the accused and they did not find them on the bus. They found the accused-appellants on the Super Fast Train. 4. On the instructions of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz, P.W. 13 Mohd. Hussain and P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal went after the accused and they did not find them on the bus. They found the accused-appellants on the Super Fast Train. 4. That the accused-appellants came to Shanti Bhawan Lodge on 20.11.1993 and stayed in Room No. 115 under a wrong name. They were seen while going to Room No. 115 in the company of Ezaz by P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain and they were also seen going out without Ezaz. They were correctly identified by P.W. 16 Narsingh, P.W. 19 HardanRam and P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain. 5. That the accused-appellants made four telephonic calls without disclosing their identity demanding ransom money of Rs. 1 lakh for setting Ezaz free who was kidnapped by them and the voice of accu- sed Mustaq Ahmed was recognised by P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz, P.W. 9 Jahanaara and P.W. 8 Sunnat Bano. 6. That the accused allegedly made an extra judicial confession of having kidnapped Ezaz; demanding of ransom money of Rs. 1 lakh and thereafter committing his murder before P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain. (17). The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants made a very scathing attack on the impugned Judgement of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the prosecution evidence and the circumstances sought to be proved against themin correct perspective following the well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence. In this respect, he relied on Smt. Manjula vs. State (1); The State of Raj. vs. Modaram (2); Karma vs. State of Raj. (3) and Seduram vs. State of Raj. (4). (18). The learned counsel has submitted that P.W. 4 Mohitesh has got veryclose relations with P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and his family members and as such, he can be branded as an interested witness. He submitted that the statement of Mohitesh was recorded by the Police on 23.11.1993 and he reported about the last seeing Ezaz in the company of the accused-appellants only on 22.11.1993. It was known to all that Ezaz was missing and hence it is not possible that Mohitesh, who was soclose to the family of Abdul Aziz, would have not known about this fact. It was known to all that Ezaz was missing and hence it is not possible that Mohitesh, who was soclose to the family of Abdul Aziz, would have not known about this fact. He therefore, submitted that the testimony of P.W. 4 Mohitesh is not at all reliable. In this respect, he has cited Deenu @ Deen Mohammed vs. State of Raj. (5). (19). The evidence regarding staying of the accused-appellants in the Shanti Bhawan Lodge is also totally unreliable as it suffers from serious contradictionsand, therefore, it ought to have been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He submitted that the most important evidence in this respect is that of P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain, who claimed to have seen the accused proceeding to Room No. 115 in the company of Ezaz at 4.00 PM and then returning from the Room without Ezaz at 7.00 PM. According to the learned counsel, no duty Register was produced toshow whether Rajeev Jain was on duty at the relevant hours or not. The evidence of P.W. 19 Waiter Hardanram is also doubtful. Regarding the evidence of P.W. 16 Narsingh, it was submitted that PW 16 Narsingh, stated on oath that the third counter clerk was on leave on 20.11.1993 but it has not been made clear as to when the third counter clerk returned back on duty. It was very important matter as to who were on duty in the said Lodge during the relevant period. The whole thing ought to have been made clear by producing the duty register. (20). Regarding the telephonic calls, the learned counsel alleged that the statements of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz, P.W. 8 Sunnat Banno, P.W. 9 Jahan Ara and P.W. 11 Mahmood Khan are totally false. They claimed to have identified the voice of accused Mustaq Ahmed. Had it been so, P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz would have definitely conveyed the same to the police and further when the accused-appellants beforeproceeding to Ahemdabad came to the house of Abdul Aziz, Abdul Aziz would have got them arrested. He would not have spared them. According to the learned counsel, P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz deputed P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain to follow the accused-appellants and to search for Ezaz. He would not have spared them. According to the learned counsel, P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz deputed P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain to follow the accused-appellants and to search for Ezaz. These two persons after checking the Video Coach Bus went to the Railway Station and found both the accu-sed near the Railway Coach but they allowed the accused-appellants to go. These facts clearly demonstrate that the statements of these witnesses regarding identification of the voice of accused Mustaq Ahmed are not believeable. (21). The learned counsel submitted that the Police did not take necessary steps to verify the particulars given in the Register of Shanti Bhawan Lodge. It wasabsolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to have compared the writings made in the Register with the standard signatures of Mohd. Anis for arriving at a definite conclusion that the above writings were that of accused Mohd. Anis. The learned counsel also attacked the identification parade conducted by P.W. 20 Raj Kamal Gaur. There was a mole beneath the right eye of accused MustaqAhmed and similarly there was a mole beneath the right ear of accused Mohd. Anis. These two moles were very conspicuous and had a material brearing on the factum of identification. Shri Gaur took no steps at all to conceal the above moles and thereby made the identification of accused-persons by P.W. 16 Narsingh, P.W. 19 Hardanram and P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain very easy and automatic. The identificationparade was held on 27.11.1993 whereas the accused-persons were arrested on 22.11.1993 and in this intervening period, the accused-persons remained in police custody. Moreover, in their statements made under S. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-persons made categorical allegation that they were seen by the witnesses in Police Custody. (22). In this respect, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants drew our attention to Subash vs. State of U.P. (6), Babusingh vs. the State of Raj. (7). (23). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has supported the impugned Judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He quoted the impugned judgment profusedly and submitted that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge took pains in analysing the evidence of the witnesses with respect to all the relevant and incriminating circumstances sought to be proved against the accused and has drawn a conclusion in accordance with law. Sessions Judge. He quoted the impugned judgment profusedly and submitted that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge took pains in analysing the evidence of the witnesses with respect to all the relevant and incriminating circumstances sought to be proved against the accused and has drawn a conclusion in accordance with law. He has submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mohd. Mustaq and his friend Mohd. Anis often usedto visit P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and also used to stay there for days. In other words, they had an intimacy with Abdul Aziz and his family. This facilitated the kidnapping of Ezaz. (24). P.W. 4 Mohitesh is an important witness, who saw the accused proceeding in the company of Ezaz from the house of Abdul Aziz. The accused-appellantsgot a room allotted in Shanti Bhawan Lodge and stayed there for two days. P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain, the counter clerk, saw the accused-persons going to Room No. 115 in the company of Ezaz at 4.00 PM on 21.11.1992. He further saw them leaving the Lodge at 7.00 PM without Ezaz. (25). P.W. 16 Narsingh saw that the dead body of a child was lying on the double bed in the Room. He then called P.W. 19 Hardanram and thereafter again locked the room and informed the police about this incident. The Police summoned P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and his family members who identified the dead body to be that of Ezaz. (26). Fromn the medical evidence, it has been proved that Ezaz was smothered to death by placing two pillows over his face and pressing the same till Ezaz died of asphyxia. The conduct of the accused was also suspicious inasmuch as theygave a false explanation when they left P.W. 1 Abdul Azaz at 8.00 PM on the date by saying that they were proceeding to Ahemdabad by a Video Coach Bus but in fact, they left for Ahemdabad by Super Fast Train. (27). The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused did not raise any objection that they were shown to the witness at the time of identification.Hence it cannot be said that the accused were shown before identification parade. In support of this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has cited Karnidan vs. State of Raj. (8), Sajeevan vs. Kerala State (9), Chander Singh vs. State U.P. (10) and Radha Ballabh & Ors. In support of this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has cited Karnidan vs. State of Raj. (8), Sajeevan vs. Kerala State (9), Chander Singh vs. State U.P. (10) and Radha Ballabh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (11). (28). We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. We have alsovery carefully analysed the evidence on record. (29). At the very outset, we may state that the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants has not disputed that the death of Ezaz was homicidal in nature. From the description given by the witnesses as proved by the document Ex. P.3 and the Photos Ex.P. 11 to Ex.P.21, it is clear that Ezaz was smothered by themurderer by means of putting soft pillows over the mouth and nose of Ezaz. Hence, we hold that Ezaz died as a result of smothering and his death was homicidal in nature. (30). Now, we would consider the initial part of the prosecution story that the accused-appellants visited P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and his family members on 20.11.1993and 21.11.1993. We have gone through the statements of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz, P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma, P.W. 5 Soniya, P.W. 7 Shamim Bano, P.W. 8 Sunnat Bano, P.W. 9 Jahan Aara and P.W. 11 Mehmood Khan. P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz has categorically stated that on 20.11.1993, the accused appellants came to him and told that they had come from Marwar. he took them to his house and offered lunch. At about 2.30PM, he came back to his Office, which was situated in the same vicinity, but the accused remained behind in his house. P.W. 7 Mst. Shamim Bano has further stated that the accused had intimacy with Ezaz because they often used to visit their house. After the departure of Abdul Aziz, both the accused were playing with Ezaz. P.W. 5 Soniya and P.W. 7 Shamim Bano further stated that at about 3.00 PM, boththe accused lured Ezaz to accompany them to the market in order to take Ice Cream and Frooty but P.W. 7 Mst. Shamim Bano did not allow Ezaz to go with them on the ground that by using cold drinks, he became ill. P.W. 4 Mohitesh has stated that he came to the house of Abdul Aziz at about 3.15 PM. It was his routine to come every day to Abdul Hafij who happened to be his friend. Shamim Bano did not allow Ezaz to go with them on the ground that by using cold drinks, he became ill. P.W. 4 Mohitesh has stated that he came to the house of Abdul Aziz at about 3.15 PM. It was his routine to come every day to Abdul Hafij who happened to be his friend. Abdul Hafij and Mohitesh oftenstudied together. He saw the accused going outside in the company of Ezaz. In order to rebut this overwhelming evidence, the accused set up the plea of alibi by producing P.W. 1 Yakub Khan, who has stated that the accused appellants attended the marriage of his daughter Aarifa Bano on 20.11.1993 at Ahemdabad and remained at his house from the morning of 20.11.1993 upto 11.00 PM. After a thought-ful consideration of the whole evidence on record, we are convinced that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove that the accused-appellants visited the house of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and his family on 20.11.1993 and 21.11.1993. The defence with regard to the plea of alibi appears to be after thought inasmuch it was never suggested to the prosecution witnesses in their cross- examination that on 20.11.1993, the accused-appellants were at Ahemdabad in connection with the marriage of Aarifa Bano daughter of D.W. 1 Yakub Khan. We, therefore, decide this circumstance in favour of the prosecution. (31). The another important and vital circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that Ezaz was last seen in the company of the accused-persons at about 3.15 PM. The solitary witness regarding this circumstance is P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma. P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma has stated that on 21.11.1993, he came to the house of Abdul Aziz in order to meet Abdul Hafij with whom he studied jointly. P.W.7 Mst. Shamim Bano informed him that Abdul Hafij had gone out and, therefore, he did not stay there and returned back to his house. (32). He was a family friend of Abdul Hafij. However, he did not tell about this fact to anybody till the next day. If we go through the statement of P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma, it becomes very clear that when Abdul Hafij was not found at his house,he returned back to his house. In his cross-examination, he has explained that after leaving the house of Abdul Hafij, he could not come to know about the missing of Ezaz. If we go through the statement of P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma, it becomes very clear that when Abdul Hafij was not found at his house,he returned back to his house. In his cross-examination, he has explained that after leaving the house of Abdul Hafij, he could not come to know about the missing of Ezaz. He only come to know about this fact on 21.11.1993 and thereafter, he went to Abdul Hafij and his family and disclosed this important evidence to them. To us, the explanation offered by P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma appears to be quite satisfactory.it is just and possible that he when he did not find Abdul Hafij at his house, he returned back to his house immediately and he could not come to know about missing of Ezaz. It is correct that Abdul Aziz and his family members were desperately searching Ezaz and a report of his missing was also lodged to the Police at 11.00 P.M. on 21.11.1993. Since P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma was not a relative of AbdulAziz or Abdul Hafij, he was not supposed to know anything about Ezaz. The family members of Abdul Aziz might not have contacted him. However, on the next day, when he came to know about missing of Ezaz, he immediately rushed and disclosed this fact to Abdul Aziz and his family members. We, therefore, hold that the testimony of P.W. 4 Mohitesh Sharma is trustworthy and it can be relied upon andfrom his testimony, it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Ezaz was last seen in the company of accused-persons on 21.11.1993 at 3.15 P.M. (33). Now, we may consider the prosecution evidence regarding telephonic calls received by P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz, P.W. 9 Jahan Aara, P.W. 8 Sunnat Bano and P.W. 11 Mehmood Khan. P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz has stated that missing of Ezaz was firstreported to him by his wife P.W. 7 Shamim Bano. Thereafter, he and his family members desperately searched for Ezaz but he could not be traced out. At about 6.00 PM, he was informed that his younger brothers wife P.W. 9 Jahan Aara received a telephonic call and the person talking on Phone informed that Ezaz was with them and he could be set free only when ransom money of Rs. 1 lakh was paidto them. At about 6.00 PM, he was informed that his younger brothers wife P.W. 9 Jahan Aara received a telephonic call and the person talking on Phone informed that Ezaz was with them and he could be set free only when ransom money of Rs. 1 lakh was paidto them. It was further threatened that if the Police will be informed, Ezaz would be done to death. After about half an hour, another telephonic call was received by P.W. 8 Sunna Bano, the mother of P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and the same message was again repeated to her. At about 9.00 P.M. Abdul Aziz and his father-in-law were sitting in the office, a similar telephonic call came which was received by P.W. 11Mehmood Khan. That was followed by another telephonic call half an hour later which was received by P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and the same message was conveyed to him. The message conveyed to P.W. 11 Mehmood Khan and P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz was partly in Marwari language. P.W. 18 Murdlidhar, Circle Officer was informed about the above telephonic calls. (34). P.W. 18 Circle Officer Murlidhar wrote a letter Ex. P. 37 to the D.T.M., Jodhpur for monitoring the telephone made to Telephone Nos. 21041, 26243 and 28512. P.W. 18 Murlidhar has stated that when he contacted D.T.M., he was informed that no telephonic call was made after 10.30. PM. (35). The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants assailed the testimony of the above witnesses on the ground that they are flirting with truth when they alleged that they identified the voice of person talking on phone to be that of accused Mustaq Ahmed. If they had recognised the voice of Mustaq Ahmed, they would not have spared him and allowed to go to Ahemdabad. P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz deputed P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain to go after the accused and to find out their whereabouts. Had Abdul Aziz recognised the voice of Mustaq Ahmed on telephone, he would not have spared out Mustaq Ahmed and would have taken steps for apprehending the accused reported a FIR against Mustaq Ahmed as there was no doubt in his mind about the persons responsible for kidna-pping Ezaz. (36). Had Abdul Aziz recognised the voice of Mustaq Ahmed on telephone, he would not have spared out Mustaq Ahmed and would have taken steps for apprehending the accused reported a FIR against Mustaq Ahmed as there was no doubt in his mind about the persons responsible for kidna-pping Ezaz. (36). We have scrutinised this part of the testimony of these witnesses and we are convinced that these witnesses are not telling the truth when they say that they recognised the voice on telephone to be that of Mustaq Ahmed or Mohd. Anis. if P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and any of his family members would have recognised the voiceof both the accused or one of the accused, they would not have spared the accused-appellants and they would have lodged a complaint against them to the Police immediately and would have taken all necessary steps with the help of the police to apprehend them. P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz allegedly deputed P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain to follow the accused-persons but he never instructedthem to apprehend them. In fact, P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain accosted the accused persons at the Railway Station when they were ready to board the train. They just asked the accused- appellants about Ezaz and returned back. These witnesses have not stated a single word in their statements recorded under s. 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that they ever recognised the voice on telephoneto be that of Mustaq Ahmed or Mohd. Anis. Thus, considering the above material evidence on record, we are convinced that this part of the testimony of these witnesses is not correct that they recognised the voice on telephone to be that of Mustaq Ahmed or Mohd. Anis. (37). Regarding the law relating to appreciation of witnesses, it may be statedthat the ordinary presumption is that a witness stating on oath is truthful until and unless he is shown to be untruthful or unreliable in any particular aspect. In India, the maxim ``Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Ominibus is not applicable. It is really a rule of caution. The Honble Supreme Court in Abdul Gani vs. State of M.P. (12), has laid down that every effort should be made by the court to disengage the truth from thefalsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff. (38). In India, the maxim ``Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Ominibus is not applicable. It is really a rule of caution. The Honble Supreme Court in Abdul Gani vs. State of M.P. (12), has laid down that every effort should be made by the court to disengage the truth from thefalsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff. (38). If we visualise the state of mind of these witnesses when Ezaz was missing and was not traceable and ransom money was demanded and ultimately the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that it was the accused-appellants who were responsible for kidnapping and murder of Ezaz, these witnesses presu-med that the person telephoned to them was either Mustaq Ahmed or Mohd. Anis and it was on account of entertaining this conviction that they claimed that the voice was that of Mustaq Ahmed or Mohd. Anis. In our opinion, it was the impression of these witnesses which they have stated rather than relying on their own hearing faculty. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even if we discard this partof the testimony of these witnesses, the remaining part of their testimony cannot be said to be unreliable or untruthful. Our conclusion, therefore, is that P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz, P.W. 9 Jahan Aara, P.W. 8 Sunnat Bano and P.W. 11 Mehmood Khan received the telephonic calls on which ransom money was demanded and threats were given. However, this is not correct that the voice of the persons who telephonedwas recognised by any of these witnesses. (39). Now, we may come to the most important and crucial part of the prosecution story as to whether the accused-appellants booked Room No. 115 in Shanti Bhawan Lodge, Jodhpur for 20.11.1993 and 21.11.1993 ? In this respect, the statements of P.W. 16 Narsingh, P.W. 19 Hardanram and P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain are very material. P.W. 16 Narsingh was the counter clerk on 20.11.1993 at Shanti Bhawan Lodge. He stated that he was on duty from 19.11.1993 from 9.00 PM. upto 9.00 A.M. of 20.11.1993. The accused wanted a room in the Lodge. P.W. 16 Narsingh allotted Room No. 115 to them and made an entry of this allotment at place `A to B in the Lodge Register Ex. P. 33. He further pointed at accused Mohd. He stated that he was on duty from 19.11.1993 from 9.00 PM. upto 9.00 A.M. of 20.11.1993. The accused wanted a room in the Lodge. P.W. 16 Narsingh allotted Room No. 115 to them and made an entry of this allotment at place `A to B in the Lodge Register Ex. P. 33. He further pointed at accused Mohd. Anis and stated that he signed the entry and he gave out his name as `R.R. Solanki and noted his address in the relevant column. P.W. 16 Narsingh handed over his charge at 9.00 A.M. on 20.11.1993 to P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain after allotting Room to the accused-persons. (40). P.W. 19 Hardanram was a Waiter in the said Lodge. He stated that the accused asked him to bring the meals in their room No. 115. He served the lunch to both the accused on 20.11.1993 and 21.11.1993. At the time of making payment for the lunch provided on 20.11.1993, there was some discussion but ultimately, thepayment was made. The payment for the lunch on 21.11.1993 was made without any fuss. He has further stated that on 20.11.1993 when he went to the accused to recover the charges for the lunch, accused Mohd. Anis asked accused Mustaq Ahmed by name to pay the amount. In this way, he came to know about the name of accused Mustaq Ahmed. (41). P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain was another counter clerk on the said Lodge on 21.11.1993. His duties started from 9.00 AM to 4.00 PM. He stated that at about 4.00 PM on 21.11.1993, both the accused came with a boy and accused Mohd. Anis approached him at the counter and took the key of Room No. 115. After obtaining the key of Room No. 115, all the three persons went to their room. At about 7.00PM, both the accused came to the counter and accused Mustaq Ahmed handed over the key of the room to him. P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain asked accused Mustaq Ahmed whether they were leaving the room ? Thereupon, accused Mustaq Ahmed told that they were staying. P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain further stated that when accused- persons returned from Room No. 115, the child was not with them. (42). P.W. 16 Narsingh has further stated that he again took over the charge from P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain at 9.00 PM on 21.11.1993. Thereupon, accused Mustaq Ahmed told that they were staying. P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain further stated that when accused- persons returned from Room No. 115, the child was not with them. (42). P.W. 16 Narsingh has further stated that he again took over the charge from P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain at 9.00 PM on 21.11.1993. When the key of the room No. 115 was not claimed upto 1.00 A.M. of 22.11.1993, he became suspicious and went to the room in order to ensure whether the occupants had left the room. When he went into the Room after opening the lock, he found the dead body of a child lyingon the double bed. On this, he immediately called P.W. 19 Hardanram and showed the dead body to him. Both these persons then locked the room and informed about this incident to the Police. (43). P.W. 21 Manoharsingh received the message given to him by P.W. 16 Narsingh from the Lodge. Since the information was incomplete, he decided to goto the Lodge personally. He set out for the Lodge after informing P.W. 18 Murlidhar about this incident. P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and his family members were also informed to reach at the said Lodge to identify the child inasmuch as the missing report of Ezaz was lodged at the Police Station. Thereupon, P.W. 1 Abdul Aziz and his family members came to the Lodge and immediately identified the dead body to be thatof Ezaz. (44). The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants has very vehemently contended that the whole evidence regarding allotment of Room No. 115 to the accused-persons is totally false and fabricated. He argued that the entry at place A to B in Lodge Register Ex. P. 33 is in the name of one `R.R. Solanki. Theaddress of Shri R.R. Solanki was also given in the Register. However, the Police made no efforts to compare the disputed writing contained in Ex. P. 33 with the standard writings of the accused. The Investigating Officer further took no steps to locate the address as given in entry ``A to B in the Lodge Register Ex. P.33. If the Investigating Officer would have made an enquiry, it would have been proved whe- ther the name and address as given in the Lodge Register Ex. P. 33 was correct or false. The comparision of disputed writings contained in Ex. P.33. If the Investigating Officer would have made an enquiry, it would have been proved whe- ther the name and address as given in the Lodge Register Ex. P. 33 was correct or false. The comparision of disputed writings contained in Ex. P. 33 with the standard hand writings of the accused was absolutely necessary to pin down the accused with this incriminating evidence. The learned counsel also assailed the veracity of Register Ex. P. 33. (45). The learned counsel has referred to the statements of these witnesses and contended that when these witnesses were cross- examined with regard to the occupants of the rooms adjacent to Room No. 115 i.e. Rooms Nos. 114 and 116,they could not reply properly. These witnesses could not explain special reasons as to why and how they remembered all the minutes details with regard to the accused-persons who allegedly occupied Room No. 115. (46). It cannot be gainsaid that the prosecution did not perform its duties objectively. We agree with the criticism of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that it was absolutely necessary for the Investigating Officer to have obtained the standard writings of the accused and compare the same with the disputed writings contained in Ex. P. 33 and the evidence so collected would have definitely show as to who signed the above entry. In our opinion, the Investigating Officer ought to have made an enquiry regarding correctness of the name and add-ress as given in Ex. P. 33. If he would have found that the name and address as givne in Ex. P. 33 were fictitious, it would have lent strength to the fact that the accused made a false entry in order to conceal their real identity. Be that as it may, we have to scan and scrutinise the above evidence and we will have to be very careful and cautious in evaluating the evidence of these three material witnesses. (47). It is correct that these witnesses could not remember anything about the occupants of the adjoining rooms viz., Rooms No. 114 and 115. All the three Rooms are situated in a row. Thus we are required to see why the witness could remember the accused- appellants ? (48). P.W.19 Hardanram has stated that he remembered the accused-personsbecause some arguments took place when he went to get the payment of lunch served to them on 20.11.1993. All the three Rooms are situated in a row. Thus we are required to see why the witness could remember the accused- appellants ? (48). P.W.19 Hardanram has stated that he remembered the accused-personsbecause some arguments took place when he went to get the payment of lunch served to them on 20.11.1993. He further stated that at that time, accused Mohd. Anis asked accused Mustaq Ahmed by name to make the payment. He, therefore, come to know about the name of accused Mustaq Ahmed. In our opinion, the explanation offered by these witnesses that they remembered the accused becauseof this gruesome murder is satisfactory. If a serious tragedy like the present one occurs, it is not difficult to recollect the possible persons involved in the incident. Hence it cannot be said that the above witnesses could not have recollected the occupants of Room No. 115. Moreover P.W. 19 Hardanram had special reasons to remember the faces of the accused-appellants. He served lunch to them on20.11.1993 and 21.11.1993 and since there were some argument s regarding payment of lunch served on 20.11.1993, Hardanram could have remembered the accused-persons. Moreover, since the incident occurred soon after, it was not difficult for these persons to recollect the faces of these two accused. (49). P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain also stated that he saw both the accused-personsgoing into their Room alongwith a child on 21.11.1993 at 4.00 PM. Since the key of Room No. 115 was collected by accused Mohd. Anis from the counter and there was no other person at the counter, it was not impossible that Rajeev could not have remembered this fact about the accused-persons going to their room in the company of Ezaz. He further stated that at about 7.00 PM of 21.11.1993, both theaccused came down and handed over the key of the Room to him and at that time also, he was also all alone and asked them whether they were leaving the room and the latter replied in the negative and further told that they were staying for two days more. Since this conversation and observations occurred on the same day, it cannot be said that Rajeev Jain could not have remembered the same. (50). P.W. 16 Narsingh has categorically stated that no Entry was made in the Check out Register Ex. D. 13 because the accused did not leave the Shanti Bhawan Lodge after notice. (51). Since this conversation and observations occurred on the same day, it cannot be said that Rajeev Jain could not have remembered the same. (50). P.W. 16 Narsingh has categorically stated that no Entry was made in the Check out Register Ex. D. 13 because the accused did not leave the Shanti Bhawan Lodge after notice. (51). As regards the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by accused Mustaq Ahemed before P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain who went to Ahemdabad alongwith P.W. 17 Mohansingh to apprehend the accused. We have carefully gone through the testimony of these three witnesses and we have come to the conclusion that the testimony of P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W.15 Abid Hussain is not at all trustworthy and reliable because in their statements before the Police i.e. Ex. D. 8 and 9, they have not uttered a single word about this important fact. Hence it appears that the evidence regarding extra judicial confession is not correct and we do not reply on the alleged extra judicial confession made by accused Mustaq Ahmed in the present of P.W. 17 Mohansingh before P.W.14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain. (52). Now, we may deal with the evidence regarding identification. It may be stated that both the accused were apprehended on 22.11.1993 vide arrest Memos Ex. P. 31 and 32. The Identification parade was conducted by P.W. 20 Raj Kamal Gaur, who was posted as Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jodhpur at the rele-vant time. P.W. 20 Rajkamal Gaur has stated that on 25.11.1993, he was on leave. The S.H.O. moved an application requesting for conducting identification parade in respect of the accused relating to FIR No. 376 of 1993 before his Link Officer. 27.11.1993 was fixed by his Link Officer for conducting the Identification Parade. He issued notices to the witnesses and fixed 2.30 PM for conducting the identifica-tion parade. He went to Central Jail, Jodhpur and the Jailor identified the accused. He mixed 10 under trials of the same age group with accused Mohd. Anis and Mustaq Ahmed and they were made to stand in a queue. Since there was an injury scar on the head and temporal region of accused Mohd. Anis, paper chits were pasted on the above parts of the persons mixed with the accused. He mixed 10 under trials of the same age group with accused Mohd. Anis and Mustaq Ahmed and they were made to stand in a queue. Since there was an injury scar on the head and temporal region of accused Mohd. Anis, paper chits were pasted on the above parts of the persons mixed with the accused. He then summo-ned the witnesses and all the three witnesses viz., P.W.16, Narsingh, P.W. 19 Hardanram and P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain correctly identified the accused-persons. He took all necessary precautions that the witnesses may not contact with the remaining witnesses. He prepared the identification Memos Ex.P.34 and 35. He also asked the witnesses to affix their signatures. (53). In his cross-examination, P.W. 20 Rajkamal Gaur was pointedly asked whether there was any mole below the right eye of accused Mustaq and he replied in the affirmative. Similarly, he admitted that there was a small mole below the right ear of accused Mohd. Anis. He however, categorically stated that the above two moles were not discernible from the distance and a person standing at somedistance cannot even notice them. (54). P.W. 17 Mohansingh has stated that immediately after arrest, the accused persons were Kept Baparda till the identification parade was over. P.W. 16 Narsingh, P.W.19 Hardanram and P.W.23 Rajeev Jain categorically stated that they saw the accused persons only when they occupied room No. 115 and thereafter,when identification parade was held and they had no occasion to see the accused persons in between this period. (55). The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that after the arrest, the accused persons were brought to the Lodge and they were exposed to the witnesses who had a clear view of the accused. The identification parade wasonly a formality because the witnesses had already seen the accused before identification parade was held. It was further contended that the accused-persons were arrested on 22.11.1993 and the identification parade was held on 27.11.1993 i.e. after about 5 days and thus, the possibility of showing the accused-persons to the witnesses can not be eliminated. In support of his contention, the learned coun- sel placed reliance on Babusingh vs. State of Raj. (supra). (56). It was next contended by the learned counsel that the under trials who were mixed with the accused persons were of different height and structure. In support of his contention, the learned coun- sel placed reliance on Babusingh vs. State of Raj. (supra). (56). It was next contended by the learned counsel that the under trials who were mixed with the accused persons were of different height and structure. We have gone through the statement of P.W. 20 Rajkamal Gaur and are satisfied that he took all precautions necessary for conducting the identification parade. He has categorically stated that he mixed 10 under trials of the same age. He also concealed the scar mark of accused Mohd. Anis. Thus, we do not find any substance in the allegation of the learned counsel that both the accused had a mole each andsince it was not concealed, it was very easy to pick up the accused-persons, during identification parade by the witnesses. In this connection, we may again refer to the statement of P.W. 20 Rajkamal Gaur who has stated that the moles were very insignificant and not clearly visible from a distance. When the moles were insignificant, they could not have any material bearing on the identification parade, evenif they were not concealed. The number of persons mixed up with the accused-appellants can be said to be satisfactory. The persons mixed with the accused were of the same age. It has not been made out from his statement that the persons who were mixed up with the accused had distinct or different appearance or age. It is very important to note that at the time of identification, the accused never comp-lained before P.W.20 Shri Rajkamal Gaur that they had been shown to the witnesses before the identification parade was held. (57). The Supreme Court in Radha Ballabh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. (supra) held that the evidence regarding identification cannot be rejected on mere suspicion that the accused might have been shown to the witness. The fact that the wit-nesses identified the accused during the identification parade itself is a strong corroborative circumstance to the identification of the accused made by them in the Court. (58). In Karnidan vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Division Bench of this Honble Court attached due importance to the fact that the accused did not raiseany objection that they were shown to the witnesses before identification parade was held. (59). A somewhat similar view was taken in Thingom Sashikumar and Ors. vs. Manipur Administration (13). (60). (58). In Karnidan vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Division Bench of this Honble Court attached due importance to the fact that the accused did not raiseany objection that they were shown to the witnesses before identification parade was held. (59). A somewhat similar view was taken in Thingom Sashikumar and Ors. vs. Manipur Administration (13). (60). After dealing with different incriminating circumstances, we hold thatthe accused-appellants visited Abdul Aziz and his family and stayed there on whole day on 21.11.1993 and that after Abdul Aziz left for his Office, they remained behind in the house and were found playing with Ezaz. P.W.4 Mohitesh Sharma saw the accused leaving the house of P.W.1 Abdul Aziz in the company of Ezaz. Both the accused booked Room No. 115 in Shanti Bhawan Lodge on 20.11.1993 at 8.30 AM.P.W. 23 Rajeev Jain saw both the accused persons proceeding to their room in the company of Ezaz on 21.11.1993 at 4.00 PM and he further saw them leaving the Lodge at 7.00 PM without Ezaz. The accused-appellants left Jodhpur on 21.11.1993 by Super Fast Train. Two Railway Tickets were found in their possession at the time of their arrest. P.W. 14 Mohd. Iqbal and P.W. 15 Abid Hussain have seen them lea-ving Jodhpur for Ahmedabad by Super Fast Train. All these circumstances from an unbroken chain to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants. (61). In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly held the accused-appellants guilty of the offences under Ss. 364,387 and 302 IPC. The sentences awarded to the accused-appellants by the lear-ned Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be said to be excessive. (62). In the result, there is no force in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. (63). Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned trial court forthwith.