Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of conviction and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appellants were put on trial before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 300/1988 for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC on the accusation of having committed the murder of Amit Kumar @ Munna in between 17th May, 1987 and 18th May, 1987 in room No. 207 of Asiana Hotel situate at Station Road Patna Town and have been convicted under the aforesaid sections and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34, IPC and seven years under Section 201/34, IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as appears from the record is that on 16.5.1987 at"11 a.m. two persons came at the Asiana Hotel for the purpose of staying in the same situate at Station Road Patna Town. One amongst them disclosed his name as Arun Kumar Singh and made an entry in the register of the Hotel giving his name, address and the purpose of the visit (Ext. 4). He also deposited Rs. 50/- as advance. Room No. 207 was allotted and the aforesaid persons stayed in the said room. On 18.5.87 Baijnath Pd. Gupta, manager of the hotel (PW 7 the informant), was sleeping inside the hotel near the counter. One out of the aforesaid two persons went out of the hotel and after fifteen minutes he returned back. At about 8 a.m. aforesaid Arun Kumar Singh asked for the bill and the bill was given to him and after payment he left the hotel. At about 8.30 a.m. PW 13 Nagendra Raut, a waiter of the hotel, who had gone to clean the room No. 207, came and informed Baijnath Pd. Gupta (PW 7) that he had noticed blood on the quilt beneath the Palang (Cot) PW 7 Baijnath Pd. Gupta went and also found that the Almirah kept in the room was locked. He informed the matter to the Gandhi Maidan Police and PW 18 Arun Kumar S.I. of Police Gandhi Maidan, came and thereafter lock of the Almirah was broken and the dead body of one of the occupants of the room having Ganji and underwear on his person was found. He informed the matter to the Gandhi Maidan Police and PW 18 Arun Kumar S.I. of Police Gandhi Maidan, came and thereafter lock of the Almirah was broken and the dead body of one of the occupants of the room having Ganji and underwear on his person was found. His shirt and pant were also kept inside the Almirah. A letter giving threat to the owner of the hotel was also found in the said Almirah. In the room one pant, one shirt, one empty bottle wine, one key of the lock kept on the ventilation, one pair chappal and two bindi were found. 4. Baijnath Pd. Gupta (PW 7) lodged the fardbeyan (Ex. 1) stating the aforesaid facts before the aforesaid Sub Inspector of Police Arun Kumar (PW 18) on the same date at about 10.30 a.m. and further gave discriptions of the other occupant of room No. 207 of the hotel who had left the hotel. He also stated that PW 3 Ismat Heyat Khan, PW 9 Muneshwar Pasi, PW 13 Nagendra Raut and other employees of the hotel will identify him. On the basis of the said fardbeyan a formal F.I.R (Ext. 13) was drawn and the police proceeded with the investigation. 5. The police photographer, namely, Devendra Thakur (P.W. 19) look photograph of the deadbody The inquest was held over the dead body and thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. On the pant of the deceased, there was a label mentioning the name of the tailor as Western Tailor, Sheikhpura, Munger. The Investigating Officer on that basis went to Sheikhpura but no clue was found. 6. Deceased Amit Kumar @ Munna was residing as a tenant in the house of Smt. Deo Rani Sinha (PW 1) in B.M. Das Road, Patna. He was studying in I Sc in B.N. College, Patna. He left in the company of appellant Ranjeet Mahto on 17.5.1987 and thereafter, he was traceless. PW 8 Shyam Narain Prasad his relation as well as the father of aforesaid Amit Kumar (the deceased), namely, Raj Kumar Prasad (PW 10) came at the Gandhi Maidan Police Station and identified the photograph kept at the police station and thereafter the father of the deceased went to mortuary where the dead body was kept and identified the dead body as of his son Amit Kumar @ Munna. He also stated that he was on inimical term with the appellants. Thereafter, the police apprehended the appellants who were put on T.I. parade and were identified by the employees of the hotel. Specimen signature and handwritings of the appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto were taken by the Magistrate. The entry made in the register of the hotel, the letter found in the Almirah and admitted specimen signature, and writings of appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto were sent to the expert who submitted his report. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance and usual commitment the appellants were put on trial which ended in their conviction, as stated above. 7. The defence of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 8. The prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses in support of the case PW 1 Smt. Deo Rani Sinha is a witness on the point that deceased Amit Kumar @ Munna was residing as a tenant in one of the room of her house along with PW 4. On 17.5.1987 at 10 a.m. appellant Ranjit Mahto came and the deceased Amit Kumar @ Munna went in his company and thereafter, he did not return back. PW 2 Azamat Heyat Khan was the receptionist in the hotel at the relevant time any he identified appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto on the T.I. Parade but he did not identify him in the Court any as such he has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Ismal Heyat Khan is the proprietor of the hotel. He proves the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) and seizure list (Ext. 2) PW 4 Manoj Kumar was the room partner of the deceased but he did not support the prosecution case and as such he has been declared hostile. P.W. 5 Shashi Bhushan Kumar is also a tenant in the house of aforesaid Deo Rani Sinha but he did not support the prosecution case and as such he has been declared hostile. PW 6 Siva Ram Bhagat was the waiter in the said hotel. He identified appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court PW 7 Baijnath Prasad Gupta was the Manager of the hotel. He identified both the appellants in the T.I. Parade but in the Court he did not identify them. PW 6 Siva Ram Bhagat was the waiter in the said hotel. He identified appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court PW 7 Baijnath Prasad Gupta was the Manager of the hotel. He identified both the appellants in the T.I. Parade but in the Court he did not identify them. But, he has proved the other part of the prosecution case that two persons came on 16.5.1986 and one of them made entry in the register of the hotel and stayed there. PW 8 Shyam Narain Prasad is the brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the father of the deceased and he has proved the photograph of the deceased marked as Ext. IV. PW 9 Muneshwar Paul was a waiter in the hotel. He identified both the appellants in the Court though he had not participated in the T.I. Parade. PW 10 Raj Kumar Prasad is the father of the deceased and he is a witness on the point that both the appellants were on litigating terms with him from before. PW 11 Narain Pandit at the relavant time was posted as Judicial Magistrate and he held the T.I. Farade of both the appellants on 24.6.1987 which was attended by PWs 2, 6, 7, 9 & 13. He has proved the T.I. Chart (Ext. 6). He also took specimen signature and writings of the appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto (Ext. 8 to 8/8). PW 12 Basant Kumar Dikshit was also posted at the relevant time as the Judicial Magistrate and he took specimen signature and writings of appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto (Ext. 5/11 to 5/21). PW 13 Nagendra Raut was the waiter in the hotel. He identified appellant Ranjeet Mahto in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. PW 14 H.P Srivas-tava is the doctor who held post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased on 19.5.1987. PW 15 Prem Dayal has been tendered. PW 16 Awadh Kumar Verma is a Government handwritings expert posted in Police Laboratory Crime Investigation Department, Government of Bihar. He has submitted a report Ext. 11. PW 17 Shyam Kumar Singh is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He at the relevant time was posted at Sheikhpura Police Station, Munger and he arrested appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto. Appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto admitted his guilt which was recorded on a tape by him and the same has been marked as material Ext. He has submitted a report Ext. 11. PW 17 Shyam Kumar Singh is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He at the relevant time was posted at Sheikhpura Police Station, Munger and he arrested appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto. Appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto admitted his guilt which was recorded on a tape by him and the same has been marked as material Ext. V & V/l PW 18 Arun Kumar is the Investigating Officer. PW 19 Devendra Thakur is the Police photographer who has taken photographs of the deceased. 9. The defence has also examined five witnesses. DW 1 Shri Kant Prasad is the photographer who had taken the photographs of the documents. He has proved the negatives of the photographs. DW 2 Vijay Krishna Vidyarthi is a handwriting expert. He has given his report after comparing the letter with the entry made in the register of the hotel and the letter recovered from the Alamirah from where the dead body was found. He has opined in his report that the aforesaid letter and the entry made in the register of the hotel do not tally with the specimen signature and handwritings of the appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto. His report has been marked as Ext. A.D.Ws. 3,4 & 5 namely, Parmeshwar Mahto, Ashwani Kumar and Subodh Pd. Verma were examined on the point that they were acquainted with the writings of appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto and they stated that the writings made on the register of the hotel and on the letter recovered from the Almirah are not the writings of appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no direct evidence in this case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that the circumstances relied upon against the appellants have not been proved by the reliable evidence. He also submitted that even if those circumstances are taken to be proved they are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. He also submitted that the evidence with regard to the identification is not reliable. The appellants were shown to the witnesses before holding the T.I. Parade. As such their evidence with regard to the identification in Court is not to be relied upon. He also submitted that the identification of the appellants for the first time in the Court by P.W. 9 cannot be relied upon. 11. The appellants were shown to the witnesses before holding the T.I. Parade. As such their evidence with regard to the identification in Court is not to be relied upon. He also submitted that the identification of the appellants for the first time in the Court by P.W. 9 cannot be relied upon. 11. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the circumstances have been proved by reliable evidence on the record and they lead to irresistible conclusion that the murder has been committed by the appellants. He also submitted that the evidence of identification of the appellants as participants in the crime finds ample support from the earlier Test Identification Parade and there in no material to show that these appellants were shown to the witnesses before holding the T.I. Parade. He also submitted that no doubt PW 9 identified the appellants for the first time in the Court but that by itself is no ground to reject his testimony on the point of identification. 12. Evidence in a judicial proceeding may be either direct or circumstantial. In case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt should be first established. Those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In other words, there should be a chain of evidence consistent with the guilt of the accused and the circumstances must show that in all human probability the offence has been committed by the accused persons. The Court should be cautious while dealing with the matter based on circumstancial evidence. 13. In this case the evidence on the record has to be scrutinised to find out as to the circumstances have been proved by the prosecution by the reliable evidence and those circumstances are only consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons. 14. The first question to be considered is as to whether the dead body was of the deceased Amit Kumar alias Munna or not and he met a homicidal death or not. 15. The evidence of PW 10 father of the deceased, shows that the deceased was studying in B.N. College, Patna and was residing at B.M. Das Road, Patna Town as a tenant in one of the rooms of the house belonging to Deo Rani Sinha (PW 1). 15. The evidence of PW 10 father of the deceased, shows that the deceased was studying in B.N. College, Patna and was residing at B.M. Das Road, Patna Town as a tenant in one of the rooms of the house belonging to Deo Rani Sinha (PW 1). On 18.5.1987 the dead body was recovered from room No. 207 of the hotel and the photograph of the dead body was taken by PW 19. PW 8 relation of the deceased had identified the deceased by the photographs. Father of the deceased also after seeing the photographs identified the dead body of his son. He also went to mortuary on 2.6.1987 where the dead body of the deceased was kept and identified the same as the dead body of his son. Thus, the evidence of these two witnesses clearly show that the dead body which was recovered from the room No. 207 of the hotel was of deceased Amit Kumar @ Munna son of PW 10. 16. PW 14 Dr. R.P. Srivastava held the post-mortem exemination over the dead body of the deceased on 19.5.1987 and found one incised wound 2" x 1" x 1 abdominal cavity deep on the right side upper part of front of abdomen. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep on right side from of chest. Two stab wounds 1/2" x 1/2" muscle deep 3" about on right side of chest 2" above injury No. 3. According to him, the injuries were caused by sharp-pointed weapons and death was caused because of the injury on the abdomen and chest. Thus, the accused Amit Kumar @ Munna died because of the injuries. 17. The next question for consideration is as to whether these two appellants have committed murder of the deceased or not. 18. The prosecution has led evidence to show that these two appellants had motive to commit the crime. PW 10 the father of the deceased has stated that prior to the occurrence a dispute with regard to Gali was going on between him and Jagdish Mahto father of appellant Ranjeet Mahto for which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC was going on. PW 10 the father of the deceased has stated that prior to the occurrence a dispute with regard to Gali was going on between him and Jagdish Mahto father of appellant Ranjeet Mahto for which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC was going on. He has also stated that appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto threw bomb at his house in the company of Jagdish Mahto father of appellant Ran jeet Mahto for which he has filed a case at Sheikpura police station under the Explosive Substance Act. The defence has not challenged the institution of the aforesaid two cases and on the other hand suggested to this witness that because of the enmity the appellants have been implicated. Thus, the prosecution has proved that there was motive on the part of the appellants to commit the said crime. 19. The evidence of the informant (PW 7) shows that on 16.5.1987 at 10 & 11 a.m. two persons came at Asiana Hotel for staying there as customer. One of them made an entry in the register of the hotel mentioning his name as Arun Kumar Singh. The said entry has been proved as Ext. 4. Two persons remained in the hotel for two days and left at 8 p.m. on 18.5.1987. PW 13 a waiter of the hotel went to clean the room and noticed blood on the quilt and then reported the matter to the informant, who also found blood on the quilt of the room and the police was informed and then the police came and the lock of the Almira inside the room of the hotel was broken and the dead body of the deceased was found. Apart from the aforesaid two witnesses other employees of the hotel who have been examined in this case, namely, PW 8, PW 6 & PW 9 have stated that the dead body of the deceased was found. During the investigation the informant (PW 7) identified both the appellants as persons who had come to stay in the hotel on 16.5.1987 and one of them made an entry in the register of the hotel (Ext. 4). However, in the Court he did not identify the appellants and has been declared hostile. During the investigation the informant (PW 7) identified both the appellants as persons who had come to stay in the hotel on 16.5.1987 and one of them made an entry in the register of the hotel (Ext. 4). However, in the Court he did not identify the appellants and has been declared hostile. PW 6, a waiter of the hotel, has stated that at the relevant time he was working in the said hotel and one day prior to the murder of the deceased i.e. 7.5.1987 he had gone in room No. 207. of the hotel to supply drinking water in the said room No. 207. He identified appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto in the Court as a person who ordered him to bring drinking water. He also identified him in the T.I. Parade held by PW 11 on 24.6.1987. 20. PW 9 was also an employee of the hotel who identified both the appellants in the Court saying that they had left the hotel in the morning of 18.5.1987. This witness had not participated in the T.I. Parade held during the investigation and the Counsel for the appellant submitted that since this witness had not participated in the T.I. Parade held during the investigation his evidence should not be relied upon regarding identification in Court. 21. The test identification parade belongs to the investigation stage and the evidence of the test identification parade is not a substantive evidence. The evidence given by the witnesses regarding identification in Court is substantive evidence and the evidence of the test identification parade is used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given in Court. The purpose of holding earlier test identification parade as held by the Apex Court is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what he has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of the identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in Court. However, there is no rule that in absence of earlier test identificatioparade the evidence of the witness regarding identification in Court is to be rejected outright. The evidence of identification in Court without holding earlier test identification parade is a weak type of evidence. However, there is no rule that in absence of earlier test identificatioparade the evidence of the witness regarding identification in Court is to be rejected outright. The evidence of identification in Court without holding earlier test identification parade is a weak type of evidence. If the Court on perusal of the evidence finds that the evidence is trustworthy and the witness has opportunity to identify the accused the Court can rely upon the same even in absence of any earlier test identification parade. Recently in the case of Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris etc. V/s. State of Maharashtra, JT 1998 (2) SC 375 the Apex Court in paragraph 19 has held as follows : "Section 9 of the Evidence Act deals with relevancy of facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. It says, inter alia, facts which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, insofar as they are necessary for the purpose, are relevant. So the evidence or identification is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act where the evidence consist of identification of the accused person at his trial. The statement of the witness made in the Court, a fortiori identification by him of an accused is substantive evidence but from its very nature it is inherently of a weak character. The evidence of identification in the T.I. Parade is not a substantive evidence but is only corroborative evidence. It falls in the realm of investigation. The substantive evidence is the statement of the witness made in the Court. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what he has seen earlier, strength or turstworthiness of the evidence of the identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in Court. If a witness identifies the accused in Court for the first time after a long time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal, so much so that it becomes unsafe purely on such piece of evidence. If a witness identifies the accused in Court for the first time after a long time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal, so much so that it becomes unsafe purely on such piece of evidence. But if a witness has known an accused earlier in such circumstances which lend assurances to identification by him in Court and if there is no inherent improbability or inconsistency, there is no reason why his statement in Court about the identification of accused should not be relied upon as any (sic) acceptable but uncorroborated testimony. 22. In this case PW 9 is a waiter of the hotel. His evidence was recorded in January 1989 just one and half year of the occurrence. He has stated that these two appellants stayed in the room from 16.5.1987 to the morning of 18.5.1987. He being the waiter of the hotel had occasion to visit the room to supply water, etc. There is no earthly reason for him to falsely implicate the appellants and in such a situation his evidence inspire confidence and only on the ground that he had not participated in the earlier that identification parade during the investigation his evidence on the point of identification cannot be rejected. 23. PW 13, as stated above, was the another waiter and he was the person who went inside the room after departure of the occupants of the said room and noticed blood. He identified appellant Ranjeet Mahto as one of the occupants of the aforesaid room. He has also identified him in the test identification parade conducted by PW 11 as he had occasions to see him several times in the hotel. As such his evidence on the point of identification of appellant Ranjeet Mahto is also worth acceptance. PW 2 at the relevant time was the receptionist of the hotel and though he supported the prosecution case that two persons came and occupied room No. 207 of the hotel and he also identified appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto in the T.I. Parade but he did not identify him in the Court and as such has been declared hostile. Thus, PW 9 had identified both the appellants as a person who stayed in the room No. 207 and P.W. 6 had identified appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. Mahto in the T.I. Parade but he did not identify him in the Court and as such has been declared hostile. Thus, PW 9 had identified both the appellants as a person who stayed in the room No. 207 and P.W. 6 had identified appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto in the T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. PW 13 had also identified appellant Ranjeet Mahto in the test identification parade as well as in the Court. 24. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that identification by these PWs 6 & 13 has to be rejected as these appellants were shown to them before holding the T.I. Parade. In this connection, -he drew my attention on the fact that on 22.6.1987 the police filed a petition before the Magistrate praying for police remand of appellant Ranjeet Mahto for one day. The Magistrate allowed the prayer and he was given on police remand and was produced by the police before the Court on 23.6.1987 and remanded to judicial custody. During this time, he was shown to the witnesses. Regarding appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto it was stated that he was shown to the witnesses while being produced in the Court. 25. The evidence on the record shows that appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto was arrested on 5.6.1987 and was produced before the Magistrate on 6.6.1987 and forwarded to custody. At that point of time if the prosecution wanted to show the appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto to the witnesses then they would have shown appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto to the witnesses while he was being brought from Sheikhpura to Patna on 5th June, 87. No such petition was filed at the time of arrest or at the time when appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto was kept in the Police custody before production in the Court on 6.6.1987 that he was shown to the witnesses. As such it is difficult to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto was identified by the employees of the hotel before holding the T.I. Parade. So far appellant Ranjeet Mahto is concerned, as stated above, he surrendered on 11.6.87 and was forwarded to jail custody. As such it is difficult to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto was identified by the employees of the hotel before holding the T.I. Parade. So far appellant Ranjeet Mahto is concerned, as stated above, he surrendered on 11.6.87 and was forwarded to jail custody. On 22.6.1987 as was taken on police remand for one day produced before the Court on 23.6.1987 and the T.I. Parade was held on 24.6.87 but on the date of production in the Court after the police remand he did not make any complaint that he was shown to the witnesses as appears from the ordersheet of the Magistrate dated 23.6.1987. In case of his being shown to the witnesses he would have filed a petition on that date. Thus, there is no material to hold that police took him on remand only for the purpose of showing to the employees of the hotel. Accordingly, there is no material to show that these appellants were shown to the employees of the hotel before holding the T.I. Parade. 26. The evidence of PW 1 shows that appellant Ranjeet Mahto visited her house where the deceased was living as a tenant in one of the room of the hotel on 17.5.1987 at 11 a.m. and he took the deceased in his company and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found in the next morning in the hotel room. There is no earthly reason for this lady witness to speak falsehood. The only point urged on behalf of the appellants to reject her testimony is that before the police she has not stated that she was knowing appellant Ranjeet Mahto from before. This, in my view, is only an omission. She has clearly stated in his evidence in Court that appellant Ranjeet Mahto used to visit her house earlier and as such she was Knowing him. 27. The threatening letter which was found in the Almirah of the room No. 207 of the hotel (Ext. X) and the entry made in the register (Ext. 4) by one of the customers occupying room No. 207 describing him as Arun Kumar Singh was compared with the specimen, signature and writings of appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto taken in presence of the Judicial Magistrates (PWs 11 & 12) by PW 18 and PW16 has submitted his report (Ext. X) and the entry made in the register (Ext. 4) by one of the customers occupying room No. 207 describing him as Arun Kumar Singh was compared with the specimen, signature and writings of appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto taken in presence of the Judicial Magistrates (PWs 11 & 12) by PW 18 and PW16 has submitted his report (Ext. 11) to the effect that writings of the letter and the entry made in the register of the room tally with the specimen signature and writings of appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto. 28. PW 16 in his evidence in the Court has given reasons for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. The defence had cross-examined him at great length but there is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his evidence. I have also perused the disputed specimen, signature and writings of appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto and the same appears to be of the same person. 29. The defence has examined five witnesses on the point that the writing of the letter (Ext. X) and the entry made in the register of the hotel are not of appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto. 30. DWs 3, 4 & 5 claim themselves to be the students where appellant Naresh Kr. Mahto was studying and have stated that the writing made on the letter (Ext. X) and the entry made on the register of the hotel (Ext. 4) were of appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto. They apart from being the interested witness are not experts and as such no reliance can be placed on their evidence. So far the evidence of expert DW 2 is concerned, no doubt he has stated that the specimen signature and writings of appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto do not tally with the disputed writings, but from his report it appears that he has admitted that he has not given the separate descriptions of the differences in the writings. He has also stated that he has given difference of alignment only by visual perception. He has also stated that only by visual perception he has given opinion about pen lifting and cramour. In such a situation his evidence cannot be relied upon. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of defence witnesses. 31. The evidence discussed above shows that the prosecution has proved the following circumstances in this case. He has also stated that only by visual perception he has given opinion about pen lifting and cramour. In such a situation his evidence cannot be relied upon. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of defence witnesses. 31. The evidence discussed above shows that the prosecution has proved the following circumstances in this case. (1) motive (2) these two appellants boarded in the hotel on 16.5.1987 and 10 & 11 a.m. and stayed there till 18.5.1987 up to 8 a.m. (3) On 17.5.1987 at 10 a.m. appellant Ranjeet Mahto took the deceased from his rented room in B.M.Das Road and thereafter his dead body was found in the room No. 207 occupied by the appellants. (4) employees of the hotel have identified these appellants as occupants of the room No. 207 of the hotel and soon after their departure the dead body of the deceased was found in the room which was locked. (5) writings in the register as well as in the letter recovered from Almirah of the room is of the appellant Naresh Kumar Mahto. 32. No doubt, each of the circumstances if taken in isolation may not lend to the conclusion regarding complicity of the appellants in the crime. However, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances lead to only one conclusion that in all human probability the appellants committed the murder of the deceased on other wards, the circumstances proved by the prosecution are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not consistent with the inheritance of the accused. The conduct of the appellants getting a room booked in the hotel in the name of another person leaving the room by locking the room with their own lock and strong motive all lead to the conclusion that the appellants committed the murder of the deceased. The evidence further shows that after committing the murder of the appellants concealed the dead body with a view to screening the offence of the offender. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants under both the sections. 33. In the result, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed. The bail bounds of the appellants are cancelled. They shall surrender and serve out the remaining period of sentences imposed upon them. B.P.SHARMA, J. 34 I agree.