Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.07.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 21/95 -The State of Rajas-than vs. Megh Raj whereby the accused-appellant Megh Raj was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and, further simple imprisonment for one month for default in payment of fine. (3). The facts of the case may be briefly summarized as below: (4). Chandu Ram, the younger brother of Budh Ram, resident of 70 G.M., Sri Ganganagar, did not return to his house on the night intervening 27th and 28.11.1994. His younger brother Budh Ram conducted a search to find out whereabouts of Chandu Ram and during search he was told by Ami Lal s/o Dhanna Ram Naik, resident of 68/1 G.B. that on the previous day, on 27.11.1994, at about 7 P.M., he saw Chandu Ram and Megh Raj s/o Pokhar Ram Jat resident of 68 G.B. going towards the room of Megh Raj. On getting the above mentioned information from Ami Lal, Budh Ram and Jeesukh Ram went to the room of Megh Raj and found sufficient quantity of blood lying on the floor. They conducted further search in the vicinity of the room and, at some place from the room, in the mustard field, they found the dead body of Chandu Ram, lying on a cot. The dead body was placed inside a `Potali made of a sheet of cloth. Legs, hands and face of the dead body were visible. The complainant Budh Ram untied the knots of the `Potali and identified the dead body to be of his brother Chandu Ram. There was only one underwear on the dead body. Injuries were visible on the head, above the left eye as well as on the cheek below the eye as well as other parts of the body. The First Information Report stating the above mentioned facts was submitted by Budh Ram at the Police Station, Ramsinghpur on 28.11.1994 at 4.20 p.m. On the basis of the First Information Report, the police registered a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. The First Information Report stating the above mentioned facts was submitted by Budh Ram at the Police Station, Ramsinghpur on 28.11.1994 at 4.20 p.m. On the basis of the First Information Report, the police registered a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. After necessary and usual investigation, the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the Station House Officer of the Police Station Ramsinghpur, in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh who committed the case to the court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar by order dated 14.02.1995. (5). A charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. (6). The prosecution examined as many as witnesses to support its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not produce any defence. (7). After hearing both the parties, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act but convicted him u/Sec. 302 the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and, further simple imprisonment for one month for default in payment of fine. (8). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, in the instant case, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the circumstantial evidence on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution for proving its case, is not sufficient to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. He has, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. (9). The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and punished, as mentioned above. (10). In the instant case, it may be stated at the out-set that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence in which the deceased Chandu Ram received the injuries which resulted in his death. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and punished, as mentioned above. (10). In the instant case, it may be stated at the out-set that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence in which the deceased Chandu Ram received the injuries which resulted in his death. The evidence against the appellant is of the circumstantial nature and the following circumstances are relied upon by the prosecution for proving the guilt of the appellant: (1) that the accused was last seen in the evening of 27.11.1994 at 7 p.m., by Ami Lal, who saw the deceased Chandu Ram and Megh Raj going together towards the room of the accused Megh Raj, (2) that during the search conducted by Budh Ram, when Budh Ram went to the room of Megh Raj, he found blood stains on the floor and, on further search, found the dead body of his brother Chandu Ram lying on a cot in a mustard field duly placed inside a `Potali made of a sheet of cloth by tying its corners and several injuries were visible on the dead body, (3) that on conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body, it was found that there were several injuries on the dead body which were ante-mortem in nature and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Chandu Ram and that the death of Chandu Ram had been caused by the injuries found on his dead body, (4) that after his arrest, the accused-appellant gave information to the Investigating Officer, about blood stained clothes and, in pursuance of that information, the Investigating Officer recovered blood stained clothes from inside a pit, (5) that after his arrest, the accused-appellant gave information to the Investigating Officer about a `kassi and, in pursuance of the information, `kassi was recovered by the Investigating Officer from inside the residential house of the accused and the blood stained articles as well as the `kassi, were containing human blood of Group `B which was the blood group of the deceased Chandu Ram and (6) that the room in which stains of blood were found on the floor and the mustard field from which the dead body of Chandu Ram has been recovered, were in possession of the accused-appellant. (11). (11). The learned Special Judge has held that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellant beyond doubt. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that circumstances on which the reliance has been placed by the learned Special Judge for convicting the appellant have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable. It is further submitted by him that, even if the above mentioned circumstances are held to be proved, they are not sufficient to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. (12). In order to prove that Chandu Ram died on account of the injuries found on his dead body, the prosecution has produced Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal (PW 4) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body on 29.11.1994 when he was posted as Senior Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Anoopgarh. Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal (PW 4) has given evidence that he, on conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Chandu Ram, found the following injuries on the dead body: ``1. Incised wound -5 cms x 2 cms x bone deep on left eye and fore-head with fracture of left and temporal bone. 2. Incised wound -7 cms x 1 cm x bone deep of left cheek extending upto left nose with fracture of left maxilla and left nasal bone. 3. Incised wound -7 cms x 1 cm x bone deep on the chin extending from left neck to right side of chin with fracture of mandible lower part. 4. Incised wound -10 cms x 10 cms x bone deep extending from right cheek to temporal area of scalp right side with fracture of right maxilla and temporal bone with laceration of right temporal lobe of brain and collection of blood in the brain over temporal part. 5. Incised wound -2 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm on centre of forehead. 6. Incised wound -1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on left shoulder. 7. Incised wound -1 cm x 1/2 cm x 3/4 cm on left neck. 8. Punctured wound -1 cm x 1/2 cm x lung deep on left chest below clavicle at the junction of third rib left with laceration of left lung upper zone with collection of blood. 9. 7. Incised wound -1 cm x 1/2 cm x 3/4 cm on left neck. 8. Punctured wound -1 cm x 1/2 cm x lung deep on left chest below clavicle at the junction of third rib left with laceration of left lung upper zone with collection of blood. 9. Incised wound -1-1/2 x 1 x 3/x cm on left chest below 8th injury. 10. Incised wound -2 x 1-1/2 x 1 cm on right shoulder. 11. Incised wound -3 x 1 x 1/2 cm on right supra claviculer area of chest. 12. Incised wound -3 x 2 x lung deep on right intrascapular area of right chest with fracture of outer end of right clavicle. Also there is laceration of right lung with collection of clotted blood. 13. Abrasion -10 cms x 1/4 cm on left chest above breast (3 in number) running parallelly. 14. Abrasion -10 cms x 1/4 cm on left chest lower part. 15. Abrasion -12 cms x 1/4 cm extending from left abdomen to right chest. Note :-Edges of all the wounds are blood stained deeply and cannot be removed by washing. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature. (13). Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal (PW 4) proved the post-mortem examination report Ex.P.12. It is further stated by him that on opening the body, he found that there was fracture of temporal bone and of left temporal and frontal bone and the position of the brain below the fracture was lacerated and blood had collected there. Outer membrance of the bone was also lacerated and blood and collected there. There was fracture of third rib and both sides of the lungs were lacerated and blood had collected there. Digested food was found in the stomach and death of Chandu Ram had been caused on account of haemorrage and coma. Regarding nature of the injuries, Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal (PW 4) has stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and injuries no.1 to 12 had been caused with sharp weapon and injuries no. 13, 14 and 15 were caused with blunt weapon. Regarding the time of death, Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal (PW 4) opined that in views of the fact that there was food in the stomach of the deceased, death might have been caused within five hours after taking the meals. 13, 14 and 15 were caused with blunt weapon. Regarding the time of death, Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal (PW 4) opined that in views of the fact that there was food in the stomach of the deceased, death might have been caused within five hours after taking the meals. He was further asked whether deceased had consumed alcohol and Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal stated that there was no evidence to show that the deceased had consumed alcohol. It was stated by Dr. Ratan Lal Agarwal in his cross-examination that death might have occurred within short time after causing of the injuries to the deceased. There is no reason why the evidence of Dr. Ratan Lal (PW 4) should not be believed. In our opinion, the evidence shows that Chandu Ram had as many as 15 injuries on his body when the post-mortem examination was conducted and out of 15 injuries, 12 injuries were caused by blunt weapon and his death had occurred on account of the injuries caused to him. Consequently, it stands proved beyond rea-sonable doubt that Chandu Ram died a homicidal death. (14). So far as the place where the alleged offence was committed is concerned, the prosecution has proved the evidence to show that the dead body of Chandu Ram was found in the mustard field belonging to the accused Megh Raj. The dead body was lying on a ``neewar cot and was tied in a `potali made of `chadar. There were several injuries on the dead body. The prosecution has also produced evidence to prove that there was a room constructed in the field in which the dead body of Chandu Ram was found and inside the room, blood stains were found and the samples of the blood stained soil were taken and, on forensic analysis, the blood stains which were found in side the room were of the same blood group as that of the deceased. (15). Budh Ram (PW 1) is the brother of the deceased Chandu Ram. His evidence is to the effect that, in the evening, his brother Chandu Ram started from 70 G.B. for going to 68 G.B. but he did not return to his house. A search was conducted to find out Chandu Ram and during search it was told by Ami Lal that he had seen Chandu Ram going with Megh Raj (the accused-appellant). A search was conducted to find out Chandu Ram and during search it was told by Ami Lal that he had seen Chandu Ram going with Megh Raj (the accused-appellant). It was fur-ther told by Ami Lal that he had seen Chandu Ram and Megh Raj going towards the `dhani of Megh Raj. on receiving this information from Ami Lal, Budh Ram and his relative Jeesukh Ram went to the `dhani of accused Megh Raj. There was a room in the `dhani. The accused was not there. When Budh Ram and Jeesukh Ram entered the room, they found that there were bloodstains at two or three places on the ground. They conducted a search in the vicinity of the room and found that at a distance of 20 to 25 paces from the room, the dead body was lying on a cot in the mustard field. The dead body was tied in a `potali made of a `chadar. Budh Ram identified the dead body is the dead body of Chandu Ram. He left Jeesukh Ram at the spot for the purpose of looking after the dead body and himself proceed to Ram-singhpur in order to lodge the First Information Report with he Police Station. Budh Ram (PW 1) proved the report Ex.P.2 on the basis of which First Information Report Ex.P.1 was prepared by the police. It is further stated by Budh Ram that, after the registration of the case at the Police Station, the Station House Officer of the Police Station went to the spot and he prepared the memo Ex.P.3 regarding the condition of the dead body of Chandu Ram and also prepared inquest report Ex.P.4. It is further stated by Budh Ram that the police collected samples of earth as well as blood stained earth and prepared the recovery memo Ex.P.5. This witness has added that sheet of cloth in which the dead body was tied was also stained with blood and the `neewar was also stained with blood. The Police Officer, therefore, seized the sheet of cloth as well as `neewar vide recovery memo Ex.P.7 and collected another samples of earth as well as blood stained earth vide recovery memo Ex.P.8. The site plan Ex.P.10 was also prepared by the police on which Budh Ram (PW 1) put his signatures. The Police Officer, therefore, seized the sheet of cloth as well as `neewar vide recovery memo Ex.P.7 and collected another samples of earth as well as blood stained earth vide recovery memo Ex.P.8. The site plan Ex.P.10 was also prepared by the police on which Budh Ram (PW 1) put his signatures. An empty bottle of wine on which there were some stains of blood was also recovered from the roof of the room. (16). Rajendra Singh (PW 12) is the Police Officer who was posted as officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Ramsinghpur on 28.11.94. He has stated that on 28.11.94, Budh Ram submitted before him First Information Report Ex.P.2, on the basis of which the case was registered and First Information Report Ex.P.1 was prepared and was signed by him. It is further stated by Rajendra Singh (PW 12) that on 29.11.94 he prepared memo Ex.P.3 indicating the condition of the dead body of Chandu Ram and also prepared inquest report Ex.P.4 and two samples of simple earth as well as blood stained earth were also collected from inside the room which was standing in the field and prepared the recovery memo Ex.P.5. It is further stated by him that he collected simple earth as well as blood stained earth from another part of the room belonging to accused Megh Raj and prepared memo Ex.P.6. Regarding the dead body of Chandu Ram, the witness has stated that dead body was found tied in a `chadar and he had seized `chadar as well as `neewar, both of which were stained with blood and sealed them in separate packet and prepared memo Ex.P.7. It is also stated by him that there were blood stains on the ground just below the cot on which the dead body of Chandu Ram was found and he collected the samples of simple earth and blood stained earth from that place also and prepared memo Ex.P.8. It is also stated by Rajendra Singh (PW 12) that he recovered an empty bottle of wine from the roof of the room and prepared recovery memo Ex.P.9 and also prepared site plan Ex.P.10 and the inspection note Ex.P.10A and recorded the statements of witnesses. It is also stated by Rajendra Singh (PW 12) that he recovered an empty bottle of wine from the roof of the room and prepared recovery memo Ex.P.9 and also prepared site plan Ex.P.10 and the inspection note Ex.P.10A and recorded the statements of witnesses. It is further stated by him that photographs of the dead body and scene of occurrence had been taken and the same have been exhibited as Ex.P.23 to Ex.P. 36 and all the articles which had been seized by him were sealed then and there and deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station. The statement of Rajendra Singh (PW 12) fully corroborates the statement of Budh Ram (PW 1) so far as the recovery of dead body of Chandu Ram, detection of blood stains on the cot and also inside the room and ground just below the cot on which the dead body was lying as well as the recovery of bloodstained sheet of cloth, `neewar and empty wine bottle is concerned. (17). We, therefore, hold that the dead body of Chandu Ram had been recovered from the mustard field which belongs to the accused-appellant Megh Raj and that stains of blood were also found inside the room belonging to the accused Megh Raj. The articles which had been recovered by the Police from the spot, were sent to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, jaipur in sealed con-dition. The report Ex.P.42 received from the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur shows that as many as 12 packets containing articles which were marked in the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory were sent for forensic examination and it was found that articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were containing human blood. The report further shows that Ex. 5,6,10,12, 16, 17, 18 & 19 contained human blood of Group-B. On the remaining articles, blood group could not be ascertained. Article marked as Ex.5 is the `chadar in which the dead body of Chandu Ram has been tied. Article 6 is the `neewar of the cot. Articles Exs. 10 and 12 are the shirt and loi respectively. Arts. 16, 17 & 18 are shirt, pillow cover and `chadar and Article 19 is the kassi. Article marked as Ex.5 is the `chadar in which the dead body of Chandu Ram has been tied. Article 6 is the `neewar of the cot. Articles Exs. 10 and 12 are the shirt and loi respectively. Arts. 16, 17 & 18 are shirt, pillow cover and `chadar and Article 19 is the kassi. The report proves that the sample of blood stains earth collected from inside the room of the accused were found to contain human blood though the blood group could not be ascertained. (18). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the prosecution has proved that the deceased Chandu Ram had been assaulted inside the room belonging to the accused and his dead body was found in the mustard field lying on a cot made of `neewar and the dead body was tied in a sheet of cloth. In view of this conclusion, the circumstance that the dead body had been found on a cot in the mustard field of the accused and that the deceased Chandu Ram had been assaulted inside the room belonging to the accused, must be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In other wo-rds, the prosecution has proved that injuries had been caused to Chandu Ram inside the room belonging to the accused and his dead body was recovered from the field of the accused. (19). The next important circumstance which the prosecution has tried to prove is that, in the evening of 27.11.1994, the deceased Chandu Ram was found going towards the `dhani of the accused Megh Raj and at that time he was accompanied by accused Megh Raj. The solitary witness who has been produced to prove this circumstance is Ami Lal (PW 10). Ami Lal (PW 10) is the cousin of the deceased Chandu Ram. He has stated that on the date of occurrence at 7 P.M. he was coming from Ramsinghpur and was walking on the path which lies on one side of the canal. At that time, on the other side of the canal, Chandu Ram and Megh Raj were going together on foot. He asked Chandu Ram where he was going and Chandu Ram told him that both of them were going towards the `dhani of Megh Raj. At that time, on the other side of the canal, Chandu Ram and Megh Raj were going together on foot. He asked Chandu Ram where he was going and Chandu Ram told him that both of them were going towards the `dhani of Megh Raj. It is further stated by Ami Lal (PW 10) that he saw both of them entering into the `dhani of accused Megh Raj. (Ami Lal) (PW 10) has further stated that on the next morning at about 7 A.M., accused Megh Raj went to his house and asked him whether he was going to village Ramsinghpur. At that time Megh Raj appeared to be perturbed. He told Megh Raj that he was not going to Ramsinghpur. It is also stated by Ami Lal (PW 10) that before he went to Ramsinghpur, Budh Ram and Jee-sukh Ram went to him and asked whether he had seen Chandu Ram and he told them that he had seen Chandu Ram Naik going towards the `dhani of Megh Raj, on the previous evening. After giving this information to Budh Ram and Jeesukh Ram, Ami Lal went to village Ramsinghpur. It is also stated by Ami Lal (PW 10) that he returned from village Ramsinghpur at about 7 P.M. At that time, persons at the house of Chandu Ram were crying. He went there and enquired and he was told that Chandu Ram had been murdered by Megh Raj at night. He was further told that dead body of Chandu Ram was found in the mustard field of accused Megh Raj. Ami Lal (PW 10) has further added that he went to the room as well as field of Megh Raj and found that blood stains were lying in the room and dead body of Chandu Ram was lying in the mustard field. It was tied in a sheet of cloth and his body was badly injured. In his statement in court, Ami Lal (PW 10) further added that when he saw the accused Megh Raj and Chandu Ram going together on the other side of the canal, Megh Raj was putting on white shirt and trousers and Chandu Ram was putting on a `chadar (dibbewali) and black loi. In his statement in court, Ami Lal (PW 10) further added that when he saw the accused Megh Raj and Chandu Ram going together on the other side of the canal, Megh Raj was putting on white shirt and trousers and Chandu Ram was putting on a `chadar (dibbewali) and black loi. Ami Lal (PW 10) has further added that police had prepared the documents Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 in his presence and obtained signatures on them. (20). The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that statement of Ami Lal (PW 10) is not reliable because he is related to the deceased Chandu Ram and, he has made improvement in his statement in court by stating that when he saw Megh Raj and Chandu Ram going together on other side of the canal, Megh Raj was putting on a white shirt and trousers and Chandu Ram was putting on a `chadar and a black loi. We have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. The submission of Ami Lal (PW 10) cannot be discarded merely because he is cousin of the deceased Chandu Ram. Relationship with the deceased, in the facts and circumstances of this case, does not adversely affect the trustworthiness of this witness. On the other hand, it makes his testimony probable as well as reliable. According to this witness he has seen the deceased Chandu Ram in the company of accused going together when he was returning from the village Ramsinghpur. At that time he was walking on the one side of the canal and the deceased accompanied by the accused was walking on the other side of the canal. Since this witness was related to the deceased Chandu Ram, he asked Chandu Ram where he was going and Chandu Ram told him that both (he as well as accused Megh Raj) were going to the `dhani of Megh Raj. The conduct of the witness appears to be quite normal for a person who was related to the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission that since Ami Lal (PW 10) is the cousin of the deceased Chandu Ram, his testimony should be discarded. The conduct of the witness appears to be quite normal for a person who was related to the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any force in the submission that since Ami Lal (PW 10) is the cousin of the deceased Chandu Ram, his testimony should be discarded. Regarding the improvements, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that in the statement made in court the witness stated that the accused was putting on white shirt and trousers and the deceased Chandu Ram was putting on a `chadar and black loi when he saw both of them going on the other side of the canal (in the evening of 27.11.94). According to the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, this improvement is deliberate and calculated to assist the prosecution in proving the offence against the accused and the testimony of the witness becomes unreliable on account of his conduct of making improvement in his statement made in the court. We have carefully considered this submission. It is true that in First Information Report Ex.P.2 which was submitted by Budh Ram (PW 1) at the Police Station, Ramsinghpur, on 28.11.1994, it is not stated that Ami Lal (PW 10) told Budh Ram anything about the clothes which the accused and Chandu Ram were putting on when they were seen on the evening of 27.11.1994. Thus there is an omission in the First Information Report about the description of clothes which the accused and the deceased were wearing when they were last seen by Ami Lal (PW 10). But, this omission is not at all material in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the morning of 28.11.1994 when Budh Ram and Jeesukh Ram went to Ami Lal (PW 10) and told him that Chandu Ram had not returned at night and enquired from him whether he had seen Chandu Ram, no body knew that Chandu Ram had been murdered and his dead body was lying in the field of the accused Megh Raj. At that time, there was no reason to suspect that Chandu Ram had been murdered. At that time, there was no reason to suspect that Chandu Ram had been murdered. In these circumstances, if the witness Ami Lal (PW 10) do not consider it necessary to tell what kind of clothes the accused and the deceased were putting on when he saw them in the evening of 27.11.1994 but no adverse inference can be drawn against the trustworthiness of Ami Lal (PW 10). No person can be said to be an accused of making an improvement in his statement on the basis of an omission which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not material and in respect of which, it cannot be said that the witness has a prudent man or to have considered that particular fact to be material and stated the same which he omitted to state. In other words, omission to state a fact which was not material at the time and in the circumstances when the previous statement was made, cannot be a basis for discarding the latter statement about the fact as an improvement. We, therefore, find no force in the submission that the statement of Ami Lal (PW 10) is not reliable because he has made any material improvement while giving statement in the court. In our considered opinion, evidence of Ami Lal (PW 10) is reliable and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the evidence of Ami Lal (PW 10), proves beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Chandu Ram and the accused Megh Raj were seen by Ami Lal (PW 10) going together, towards the `dhani of accused, in the evening of 27.11.1994. We, therefore, hold that this circumstance has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (21). The next circumstance which the prosecution has tried to prove is the recovery of blood stained clothes and blood stained `kassi, in pursuance of the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (22). We, therefore, hold that this circumstance has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (21). The next circumstance which the prosecution has tried to prove is the recovery of blood stained clothes and blood stained `kassi, in pursuance of the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (22). The prosecution case is that after the murder of Chandu Ram, in the night intervening 27th and 28.11.1994, accused Megh Raj could not be immediately arrested by the police and he was arrested on 19.12.1994 by Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) who prepared the arrest memo Ex.P.39 after formally arresting accused Megh Raj and on 23.12.1994, the accused Megh Raj gave an information about a `kassi lying in one of the rooms of his house in the village and that infor-mation was recorded as Ex.P.40 and in accordance with this information, the accused produced a `kassi from inside the room of his fathers house in the field. At the time of the recovery of `kassi, the blade as well as handle of the `kassi were stained with blood. The `kassi was seized and the recovery memo Ex.P.40 was prepared. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 23.12.1994, the accused Megh Raj gave information about the blood stained clothes. He gave the information to Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) that he had concealed his own blood stained clothes and blood stained clothes of the deceased in a pit (kui) which had been dug in the field near the toilet. This information was recorded on Ex.P.41 and, in accordance with the information given by him, the accused got recovered the clo-thes from inside `kui. The same were seized by the police and recovery memo Ex.P.16 was prepared and site plans Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17 were also prepared showing the place from where the `kassi and blood stained clothes had been recovered. The recovery of blood stained clothes and `kassi is important in this case because the prosecution has tried to prove that blood stained clothes and the `kassi, after the recovery, were sealed and sent to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur in a sealed condition without having been tampered with and it was found that they were containing human blood of the blood group of the deceased. (23). (23). The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding, arrest of the accused, information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of blood stained articles and the `kassi is completely unreliable. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is, that the accused Megh Raj had been arrested by the police on 29.11.1994, viz., on the day following the day of recovery of the body of Chandu Ram and the blood stained clothes as well as `kassi had also been recovered by the police on 29.11.1994 and the officer conducting the investigation has concealed these facts and falsely shown the arrest of the accused on 15.12.1994. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that if the entire story advanced by the prosecution regarding the date of arrest of the accused on 15.12.1994 is treated as false, the remaining story about giving of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 23.12.1994 and recovery of blood stained clothes and `kassi in pursuance of these informations would be liable to be discarded as the investigation has not been done fairly, honestly and truthfully. In short, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has criticised the prosecution evidence regarding the date of arrest of the accused, the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of blood stained clothes and `kassi is unreliable and fabricated. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the criticism made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is unfounded. We now proceed to consider whether the criticism of the prosecution evidence by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is justified. (24). Whether the accused was arrested on 29.11.1994 and recoveries of `kassi and blood stained clothes were made on the same day or the accused Megh Raj was arrested on 15.12.1994 and he gave information on 23.12.1994 and recoveries were made on 23.12.1994, can be ascertained by considering the evidence of the concerned Investigating Officer and the other persons acquainted with the circumstances of the case. Rajendra Singh (PW 12) is the first Investigating Officer who reached the spot on 28.11.1994 after submission of the First Information Report at the Police Station by Budh Ram (PW 1), in the afternoon of 28.11.1994. Rajendra Singh (PW 12) is the first Investigating Officer who reached the spot on 28.11.1994 after submission of the First Information Report at the Police Station by Budh Ram (PW 1), in the afternoon of 28.11.1994. Since Rajendra Singh (PW 12) reached the spot at night, the investigation was conducted on 29.11.1994. He inspected the room as well as mustard field where the dead body of Chandu Ram was lying. He prepared the site plans and made recoveries of samples of simple earth as well as blood stained earth, from inside the room as well as the place where the dead body was lying and also recovered the sheet in which the dead body was tied and the `neewar of the cot which had also become blood stained. He prepared the site plan as well as the memo of inspection and the inquest report and a memo stating the condition of the body of the deceased. Rajendra Singh (PW 12) is, therefore, one of the most important witness, who app-ears to be in a position to give information about availability of the accused and the recoveries of articles on 29.11.1994 as he conducted the investigation on that day. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) is the second Investigating Officer who visited the spot firstly in order to verify the site plan prepared by Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and, secondly, to proceed further with the investigation by arresting the accused on 15.12.1994, recording the information given by the accused on 23.12.1994 and making recoveries on the same day, of the blood stained clothes and `kassi. (25). The Motbirs in whose presence the information was conducted are also persons whose evidence is relevant regarding the arrest of the accused and recoveries of the blood stained clothes and `kassi. (26). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Budh Ram (PW 1) who is the first informant in the case, was one of the Motbirs in whose presence investigation was conducted by Rajendra Singh (P?W 12) and recovery memo of certain articles were prepared. Regarding statement of this witness, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that in cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has submitted the First Information Report Ex.P.2 on the next day after seeing the dead body of Chandu Ram. Regarding statement of this witness, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that in cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has submitted the First Information Report Ex.P.2 on the next day after seeing the dead body of Chandu Ram. It is suggested by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that, in view of this submission it should be inferred that the First Information Report Ex.P.2 was submitted at the Police Station, on 29.11.1994 and not on 28.11.1994. We will consider this criticism later on. At this stage it is sufficient to say that there is nothing in the statement of Budh Ram (PW 1) to show that the accused Megh Raj had been arrested on 29.11.1994 or the blood stained clothes and `kassi had been recovered on 29.11.1994. (27). Rajendra Singh (PW 12) is the Investigating Officer who inspected the scene of occurrence on 29.11.1994 and prepared the site plan as well as recovery memos after recovering the dead body and the sheet of cloth in which the dead body had been tied as well as the samples of blood stained earth and empty bottle of wine from the roof of the room. P.C. Nyola (PW 14) is the second Investigating Officer who arrested the accused on 19.12.1994 and recorded the information given by Megh Raj on 23.12.1994 and made recoveries of blood stained clothes from insi-de a pit situated in the field and a `kassi from inside the room of the residential house in the village. None of these two Investigating Officers have been cross-examined and much less shaken so far as the date of arrest of the accused Megh Raj and the date of recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused and deceased and `kassi are concerned. (28). The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has drawn our attention to certain statements of some prosecution witnesses other than the Investigating Officers Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW 14). Our attention has been drawn to the cross-examination of Ami Lal (PW 10). It appears that during his cross-examination Ami Lal (PW 10) stated that clothes of Chandu Ram and Megh Raj were recovered from inside a `kui and the same were taken out of `kui by sweeper and, at that time, the accused Megh Raj was not present. Our attention has also been drawn to the cross-examination of Om Prakash (PW 6). It appears that during his cross-examination Ami Lal (PW 10) stated that clothes of Chandu Ram and Megh Raj were recovered from inside a `kui and the same were taken out of `kui by sweeper and, at that time, the accused Megh Raj was not present. Our attention has also been drawn to the cross-examination of Om Prakash (PW 6). It appears that in his cross-examination, Om Prakash (PW 6) stated that the Police Officer had visited the field of Megh Raj. At that time, the accused Megh Raj was with the police. The accused got recovered a `kassi from his room. At another place, in his cross-examination Om Prakash (PW 6) has stated that the clothes had been recovered from inside the `kui before the recovery of `kassi from the house. Our attention has also been drawn to the examination-in-chief of Jeesukh Ram (PW 7) who has stated that when the police visited the place, Megh Raj was not present at his house; he was arrested on the next day. Regarding the recovery of clothes and `kassi. Jeesukh Ram (PW 7) has stated that the clothes had been recovered before the recovery of `kassi from the house. Our attention has also been drawn to the cross-examination of Nathu Ram (PW 8) who has stated that the police prepared the site plan and on the same day the accused was arrested by the police and brought to the `dhani and the accused pointed towards the `Kui and got recovered the clothes. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has submitted that, in view of the statement of Nathu Ram (PW 8) that the police prepared the site plan and on the same day he police arrested the accused and brought him to `dhani, it should be inferred that the accused was arrested on 29.11.1994, which was the date on which the Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh (PW 12) reached the place of occurrence to conduct investigation and prepared the site plan and other documents. It is further stated by him that the statement of Jeesukhram (PW 7) in his examination-in-chief, that accused Megh Raj was not present at his `dhani and he was arrested by the police on the next day, shows that the accused Megh Raj was arrested on 30.11.1994 and, therefore, the entire prosecution evidence regarding the arrest of the accused on 19.12.1994 and the evidence about giving of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 23.12.1994 as well as the evidence of recovery of clothes and `kassi should be disbelieved. We are not impressed by this argument. It is well established that the evidence of the witnesses is not to be weighed against one another in terms of number. The worth of the evidence is to be assessed on the basis of the quality of the evidence. Whether the accused was arrested on 19.12.1994 or he was arrested on 29.11.1994 or 30.11.1994 is a question which should have been put to the Investigating Officers Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW 14) in their cross-examination. No effort was made by the accused to shake the testimony of Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW 14) regarding the date of the arrest of the Meth Raj. In these circumstance, it must be inferred that the accused has no courage to shake the testimony of Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW 14) regarding the date of arrest of the accused. It accused. It is true that the court has unfettered powers to assess the worth of the evidence of every witness for the purpose of arriving at the correct decision. This power is inherent in the judicial power of the court and neither this power can be curtailed nor the court can abandon it. But, it is equally true that every person, has certain fundamental rights including the right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The statement made by the witness is undoubtedly subject to scrutiny by the Court but it does not mean that the right of the witness to get a fair treatment, is not available to him. The right of the witness to get a fair treatment is well established by the following observation of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1). The right of the witness to get a fair treatment is well established by the following observation of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1). In this case their Lordships of the Honble Supreme court observed: ``All that is required is that the witness must be treated fairly and be afforded an opportunity of explaining the contradictions after his attention has been drawn to them in a fair and reasonable manner..... The matter is one of substance and not of mere form. It is well established that right to dignity is also included under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A witness who is called upon to speak the truth and does his best to speak the truth, is entitled to a fair treatment by virtue of the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the matters of assessment of his truthfulness. If it is intended to discard his evidence as false or open to doubt, the proce-dure by which an inference adverse to the truthfulness of the witness may be drawn, must be reasonable and fair. Either the testimony of the witness should be shaken by effective cross-examination (in case it is really false) or the evidence of the witness should be shown to be no inherently improbable as to reject the evidence as false or open to serious doubts. If this is not done and a witness is con-demned as a person giving false evidence, we apprehend the right to a fair treatment and the right to dignity available to the witness under Article 21 of the Constitution would be seriously violated. So far as the impeachment of witness by contradicting with the previous statement is concerned, it is well established that no witness could be contradicted by using a statement made by another person. The reason behind this rule is that a person who is called upon to state the truth can be held to be responsible for his own actions and for his own statement and he is undoubtedly under a legal obligation to speak the truth in the court but there is no obligation on him, express or implied, to ensure that other persons also speak the truth before the court. The medieval practice of contradicting a witness with the statement made by another person, is fallacious and fraught with great danger. The medieval practice of contradicting a witness with the statement made by another person, is fallacious and fraught with great danger. It is unfair, because contradicting a man by using the statement made by another person, tantamounts to hold that person responsible not for his own act but the act done by another. For these reasons, in our considered view, it was necessary for the accused to make an attempt to shake the testimony of Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW 14) regarding the date of the arrest of the accused as well as the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recoveries of blood stained clothes and `kassi. The procedure suggested by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that testimony of these two Investigating Officers, would be discarded on the basis of some statements made by other witnesses, without showing that these Investigating Officers are unreliable or that they have fabricated the evidence in any manner, is completely unfair and not conducive to ascertainment of truth and is not back by any rational principle or authority. Since Rajendra Singh (P.W. 12) and P.C. Nyola (P.W. 14), have not been shaken in their cross-examination nor it has been shown that they are persons of unreliable character, we do not find any reason to discard their evidence on the ground suggested by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. (29). There is another reason for not giving much importance to the statement purporting to have been given in the cross-examination of Ami Lal (PW 10), Nathu Ram (PW 8), Om Prakash (PW 7) and in examination-in-chief of Jeesukh Ram (PW 7). First of all we could point out the error which is likely to creep in. Normally, the statement of the witness is recorded by the trial court not in the question form but in the form of narrative or in the form of the substance of deposition. The Criminal Procedure Code 1898 as well as Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, provide for three kinds of category of deposition of the witness. These are; (1) question-answer form, (b) in the form of narrative and (c) in the form substance of the evidence given by the witness. There is a real and substantial distinction between these three forms for recording of evidence of the witness. These are; (1) question-answer form, (b) in the form of narrative and (c) in the form substance of the evidence given by the witness. There is a real and substantial distinction between these three forms for recording of evidence of the witness. In the case of recording evidence in question-answer form, the question put to witness is recorded in the same words in which the question is asked. The answer given by the witness is recorded in the same words in which the answer is uttered by the witness, without any attempt on the part of the trial Judge or deposition recorded to add anything or to omit or substitute anything in the question or the answer. This form of recording of the statement is most dependable form of recording because the question put to the witness is correctly recorded and the answer given by the witness is also correctly recorded. What the witness actually means to say is a matter which is ascertained by the Judge at the time of writing the judgment and the appellate court has the benefit of knowing correctly what question was to put to the witness and what words were uttered by the witness to answer the question. Recording the statement in the question-answer form, is, therefore, most accurate method of recording evidence of witness and in all serious cases, particularly the cases triable by the Court of Session, recording of the statement in the question-answer form was mandatory, until recently when the Sessions Judges have been permitted to record the statement in narrative. (30). When the statement is recorded in narrative form, some mistake is likely to creep in when the words uttered by the witness, or by themselves not sufficient to convey any meaning and the meaning is to be ascertained by the trial Judge or the deposition recorder by amalgamating the question put to the witness and the words uttered by the witness. It is common knowledge that if a person is asked the question ``whether your name is Ramesh Chandra ? the witness do not answer by saying ``sir my name is Ramesh Chandra. The experience shows that the witness simply answers ``yes sir. It is common knowledge that if a person is asked the question ``whether your name is Ramesh Chandra ? the witness do not answer by saying ``sir my name is Ramesh Chandra. The experience shows that the witness simply answers ``yes sir. The answer ``yes Sir by itself conveys no meaning at all and, therefore, if the statement of the witness is recorded in the narrative, it is the trial Judge or the deposition recorder who prepares the statement of the witness by amalgamating the question and the answer and then he records the statement as ``my name is Ramesh Chandra. What is to be noted is that where a statement is no volunteered by a witness but is elicited from him by putting questions to him, the answers are short and by themselves meaningless and the meaning of the words uttered by the witness, is to be ascertained by a process of interpretation by the trial Judge or the deposition recorder, in the context of the questions put to the witness and the statement in narrative is prepared by the trial Judge or by the deposition recorder by amalgamating the question as well as the words uttered by the witness. It is obvious that the process of interpretation is necessary for preparing the narrative of the statement of the witness and, therefore, there is always a possibility of some error having been committed by the trial Judge or the deposition recorder. The possibility of such error, must be kept in view when the statements recorded in the narrative form are concerned and, the discrepancies, which are not otherwise occurred in such statements, particularly in the cross-examination. In such cases, if the witness, in cross-examination, says anything which is inconsistent with what he has said in the examination-in-chief or which is palpably absurd or incapable with the case set up before the court, the possibility of a probable error committed during the process preparing the narrative of the statement, makes it necessary that the attention of the witness should be drawn to the statement and he should be given an opportunity to affirm or deny the statement which is intended to be attributed to him. It is the duty of the trial Judge, to ensure that the statement of the witness is correctly recorded and, when it is being recorded in narrative form, and the narrative is to be prepared by him by finding out the meaning of the words uttered by the witness in the context of the question put to him, it would be advisable to record the question as well as the answer and to draw the attention of the witness to the statement made by him particularly that which is inconsistent with the earlier statement made in the examination-in-chief or in the cross examination. In view of this, it was necessary for the accused to have drawn the attention of the witness to the statement which are apparently attributed to them in their cross-examination and it was further necessary to successfully shake evidence of the Investigating Officers, namely, Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW14). (31). We now deem it fit to consider the value of the statements made by the witnesses named above in their cross-examination on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance for criticising the prosecution case. (32). Nathu Ram (PW 8) has stated in his cross-examination that the Police Officer prepared the site plan and on the same day the police arrested the accused and brought him to the `dhani and the accused got recovered clothes from inside the `kui. This statement should be read as rest of the statement made in the cross-examination. In fact the witness stated in the cross-examination. <span class="Hfont">^^ml fnu iqfyl dks ;g irk ugha pyk Fkk fd eqyfte us [kqbZ esa diM+s Mky fn;s gS vkSj bldh lwpuk eqyfte us iqfyl dks ckn esa nh FkhA ml fnu [kqbZ dh rykkh iqfyl us ugh yh FkhA esjs lkeus tks dk;Zokgh iqfyl us dh Fkh ml fnu eSus dLlh ugh ns[khA dksBks ds ikl gh [kqbZ gSA uDkk ekSdk cukus ds nwljs fnu fQj dgk fd tc uDkk ekSdk cuk;k ml fnu ckn esa eqyfte dks iqfyl fxjQ~rkj dj <k.kh ij ykbZ Fkh vkSj eqyfte us [kqbZ crkdj mlesa ls diM+s iqfyl dks cjken djk;s FksA ges rks iqfyl okyksa us NwV~Vh ns nh blfy;s] eq>s irk ugha fd eqyfte us ckn esa iqfyl dks D;k D;k cjken djk;kA iqfyl us diM+s esjs lkeus cjkenkqnk can fd;s Fks rFkk esjh fukkuh vaxwBk djkbZ FkhA** (33). A careful reading of the above statement of the witness clearly shows that on 29.11.1994 when the Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh (PW 12) went to the spot to conduct the investigation, the witness was present and in his presence the police did not conduct any search of the `kui nor any recovery of clothes or the `kassi was made in his presence. In fact the witness has said that on that day the police did not know that the accused had thrown the clothes in the `kui and the information about clothes was given by the accused later on. The witness has nowhere said that the Investigating Officer made any recovery of clothes and `kassi on the first day of investigation, i.e. on 29.11.1994. The latter portion of the statement of the witness that the police arrested the accused and brought him to `dhani, must be read in view of the further statement that he does not know what articles were got recovered by the accused as the police had given him leave to go. This state-statement shows that at the time of the recovery of `kassi and the clothes, the witness was not present and, therefore, he does not have any personal knowledge about the recovery of `kassi and the clothes at the instance of the accused. The statement relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the police had arrested the accused and brought him to `dhani is obviously not based on personal knowledge of the witness and is, therefore, completely inadmissible under Section 60 of the Evidence Act and in any case it is not sufficient to disprove the statement made by the witness that the Police Officer had no information about the clothes and `kassi and that information had been given by the accused later on. We, therefore, do not find force in the submission that the statement of Nathu Ram (PW 8) shows that the accused had been arrested on 29.11.1994 and the clothes and `kassi were recovered on the same day by the police. (34). We, therefore, do not find force in the submission that the statement of Nathu Ram (PW 8) shows that the accused had been arrested on 29.11.1994 and the clothes and `kassi were recovered on the same day by the police. (34). So far as the statement of Jeesukh Ram (PW 7) is concerned, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has tried to draw our attention to the statement made in his examination-in-chief wherein he stated that - <span class="Hfont">^^ml le; eqyfte es?kjkt viuh <k.kh ij ekStwn ugh Fkk mlds nwljs fnu gh iqfyl us es?kjkt dks idM+ fy;kA** It is true that Jeesukh Ram (PW 7) has stated in examination-in-chief in the end that on the next day, the police arrested Megh Raj but he has nowhere stated that the accused was arrested in his presence. In order any statement may be relevant as direct evidence of fact, it must be in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 60 of the Evidence Act which provide that if a thing could be seen, the evidence of the person who says he saw it and if the thing could be heard it must be the evidence of the person who says he heard it and if the thing could be perceived in any other manner, the evidence must be of the witness who says that he perceived it in that manner. Jeesukh Ram (PW 7) does not appear to have any personal knowledge about eha arrest of the accused Megh Raj. Therefore, the statement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is neither relied upon under Section 60 of the Evidence Act nor it has any evidentiary value. (35). Our attention has also been drawn to the statement of Ami Lal (PW 10) who has stated in his cross-examination that the clothes of Chandu Ram and Megh Raj were found in a `kui and the same were taken out by a sweeper. This statement is followed by the statement that accused Megh Raj was not present. It is well known that in the cross-examination, the cross-examiner has unfettered liberty to put any question. Regarding any part of the question to the witness at any time, there is no rule requiring the cross-examiner to put question to the witness in the systematic way, in conformity with the sequence in which the events took place. It is well known that in the cross-examination, the cross-examiner has unfettered liberty to put any question. Regarding any part of the question to the witness at any time, there is no rule requiring the cross-examiner to put question to the witness in the systematic way, in conformity with the sequence in which the events took place. It is common knowledge that some time, questions are put to the witness, about events which are separated by some other events or by gape of time. When the statement of the witnesses are recorded in question-answer form, the question put to the witness indicates the particular event or the particular point of time about which the witness is asked he question and the court may correctly ascertained what the witness has said but when the statement is recorded in a narrative form, recording of question is completely omitted and the brief answer, which according to the trial Judge is sufficient, is recorded, and it is possible that the answer in the narrative form prepared by the trial Judge does not correctly indicate the events or the point of time about which the answer was given. In such cases, two statements may appear to be in continuity to each other inspite of the fact that they may be related to separate incident. An error is likely to creep in, if the trial Judge, is not vigilant. In any case when any statement which is incompatible with the case set up by the witness or is incompatible with their earlier statement or is palpably improbable and absurd, it is necessary that the attention of the witness should be subsequently drawn to find out what the witness actually means to say. It has not been done in this case. After careful reading of the whole statement of the witness Ami Lal (PW 10) and, in view of the unshaken testimony of other witnesses including Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW 14), we are of the opinion that the statement -^^ml le; es?kjkt ogkWa ugh Fkk** does not mean that at the time of recovery of clothes, the accused Megh Raj was not present. It may be pointed out that Bhanwar Lal (PW 9) has given statement that the clothes as well as `kassi had been recovered by the police in his presence. It may be pointed out that Bhanwar Lal (PW 9) has given statement that the clothes as well as `kassi had been recovered by the police in his presence. The witness has categorically denied in his cross-examination that the clothes had been recovered by the police 25 days before the date of alleged recovery. (36). For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any force in the submission that the arrest of the accused on 19.12.1994 and the testimony of Rajen-dra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW14) is open to any doubt. The statement of P.C. Nyola (PW 14) has not been shaken in the cross-examination, it is corroborated by other evidence and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had been arrested on 19.12.1994 and on 23.12.1994 he gave information about the clothes and `kassi. (37). Having dealt with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the accused had been arrested on 29.11.1994 and that the evidence produced by the prosecution to show that he was arrested on 19.12.1994, is false. We now proceed to deal with the circumstance, namely, recovery of incriminating articles, viz., the blood stained clothes and a `kassi, in pursuance of the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) is the Police Officer who has given evidence regarding the arrest of the accused on 19.12.1994 and further investigation in the case. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) stated on oath that on 15.12.1994, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anoopgarh. On that day he received the file of the First Information Report No. 129/94 of Police Station, Ramsinghpur for investigation. He further stated that he arrested accused Megh Raj on 19.12.94 and prepared the arrest memo Ex.P.39 which bears his own signatures as well as signature of accused Megh Raj. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) has added that on 23.12.1994 Megh Raj gave information to the effect that he had placed `kassi in the roof of his house which he could get recovered and this information was recorded on Ex.P. 40. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) has proved his signatures as well as the signatures of the accused on the information memo Ex.P.40. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) has proved his signatures as well as the signatures of the accused on the information memo Ex.P.40. Regarding recovery of `kassi, Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) has stated that the accused took him to his house and got recovered a `kassi from inside a room in presence of Motbirs and the `kassi was sealed and recovery memo Ex.P.14 was prepared. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) proved his own signatures as well as signatures of the accused and the impression of seal on the recovery memo Ex.P.14. It is further stated by Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) that on 23.12.1994, accused Megh Raj gave another information to the effect that he had concealed his own clothes as well as the clothes of Chandu Ram in a `kui which had been dug in his field near the toilet in Rohi Chak No. 68 G.D. and he could get the same recovered and this information was recorded as Ex.P.41. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) proves his own signatures as well as the signatures of the accused Megh Raj on the information memo Ex.P. 41. Regarding recovery of clothes, Shri P.C.Nyola (PW 14) has added that the accused took him to his field and got recovered clothes including one white shirt, one tur-ban, one woolen loi, one white Baniyan, a pair of shoes, one purse, one white shirt, one `chadar and one pillow cover, all of which were stained with blood. He further added that all these articles were sealed at the spot and recovery memo Ex.P.16 was prepared which bears his own signatures as well as the accused and the impression of the seal was also affixed on the recovery memo. It is also stated by him that the clothes of the deceased were identified by Bhanwar Lal at the spot but, in our opinion, this statement of Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) is inadmissible in view of the provisions contained under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We, therefore, omit the statement relating to identification of the clothes of the decea-sed by his son Bhanwar Lal. Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) has further added that site plans Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17 of the places from which the `kassi and the blood stained clothes had been recovered were prepared. He has proved his own signatures as well as of the accused Megh Raj on these site plans. (38). Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) has further added that site plans Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17 of the places from which the `kassi and the blood stained clothes had been recovered were prepared. He has proved his own signatures as well as of the accused Megh Raj on these site plans. (38). We have carefully considered the evidence given by Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14). We have already dealt with the question relating to date of arrest of the accused and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to further discuss that fact. The statement of Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) could not be shaken in the cross-examination. It was suggested to him that the axe as well as the blood stained clothes were recovered by him on the day the went to the spot to verify the site plan but he has categorically denied this suggestion. On a careful consideration of the statement of Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14), we do not find any reason to doubt his testimony which is fully supported by the evidence of the witnesses of recovery. (39). Om Prakash (PW 6) and Bhanwar Lal (PW 9) are the witnesses in whose presence the `kassi was recovered. Both of them supported the statement of Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14) by stating that in their presence `kassi as well as blood stained clothes had been recovered by the police and the recovered article had been sealed at the spot and recovery memos Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.16 as well as site plans Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17 were prepared and they were got signed. It was suggested to Om Prakash (PW 6) that the `kassi had been recovered before he reached the house of accused but he has categorically denied this suggestion and stated that `kassi had been recovered by the police in his presence. Regarding the room from which the `kassi had been recovered, Om Prakash (PW 6) has stated that the room was closed but was not locked and the house from which the `kassi had been recovered belongs to his father in which his father was living and he was present at the time of recovery. It is further stated by him that the accused himself brought the `kassi from inside the room. Regarding the clothes, Om Prakash (PW 6) has stated that the clothes had been recovered from inside a `kui. It is further stated by him that the accused himself brought the `kassi from inside the room. Regarding the clothes, Om Prakash (PW 6) has stated that the clothes had been recovered from inside a `kui. It is also stated by him that Bhanwar Lal S/o Chandu Ram had identified the clothes of his father at the time of recovery. The statement of Om Prakash (PW 14) could not be shaken in the cross-examination. (40). Bhanwar Lal (PW 9) has stated that `kassi as well as blood stained clothes had been recovered in his presence and the recovery memos Ex.P.14 and Ex.P. 16 as well as site plans Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17 had been prepared in his presence. He has stated the accused himself took out the clothes from inside the `kui with the help of a `kundi and the clothes included one loi, one `kurta of Megh Raj, one `chadar, one pillow cover, a piece of Baniyan, a `safa, a pair of shoes, one purse and inside the purse there was a diary containing accounts. It is also stated by him that there was a sheet made of coverings of manure bags and all the items which had been recovered had been sealed then the there. He identified shirt (Article 1), turban (Article 2), loi (Article 3), shoes (Article 4), Purse (Article 5), sheet of cloth (Article 6), Baniyan (Article 7) in the court and told that all these articles belong to his father Chandu Ram. In the court, the witness has also identified the clothes, namely, shirt (Article 8), sheet (Article 9), pillow cover (Article 10) and `kassi (Article 1) and told that these articles belonged to the accused. Regarding the reco-very of `kassi, the witness stated that the accused himself produced the `kassi from inside the room of his house and the blade as well as the handle of the `kassi were stained with blood. It was suggested that the recoveries of `kassi and the clothes were not made in his presence but he denied this suggestion. (41). Regarding the reco-very of `kassi, the witness stated that the accused himself produced the `kassi from inside the room of his house and the blade as well as the handle of the `kassi were stained with blood. It was suggested that the recoveries of `kassi and the clothes were not made in his presence but he denied this suggestion. (41). On a careful consideration of the evidence of the evidence of Shri P.C. Nyola (PW 14), Om Prakash (PW 6) and Bhanwar Lal (PW 9), we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, on 23.12.1994 when the accused was in custody of the police, the accused gave information about `kassi as well as about the clothes and in pursuance of the information given by the accused, the police recovered `kassi from inside the room from the house of the accused and the accused himself had produced the same before the police. The police also recovered clothes and other items from inside `kui and the accused himself took out the same from the `kui and produced before the police and that all these items had been sealed at the spot and the recovery memos Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.16 as well as site plans Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17 were prepared at the spot. We, therefore, find no force in the submission that the recovery of `kassi and blood stained clothes is doubtful. (42). The prosecution has produced evidence to show, that on 29.11.1994 Rajendra Singh (PW 12), went to the spot and conducted investigation and, during investigation, he recovered the dead body of Chandu Ram which had several injuries and also recovered blood stained `neewar of the cot on which the dead body was lying and a printed sheet of the cloth in which the dead body had been tied. He further collected samples of simple earth and blood stained earth from inside the room situated in the field of the accused and from the place where the cot on which the dead body was found, was placed and all these items had been sealed then the there. The evidence of Rajendra Singh (PW 12), Bhanwar Lal (PW 9) and Ami Lal (PW 10) proves the recovery of above mentioned articles from the scene of occurrence. (43). The evidence of Rajendra Singh (PW 12), Bhanwar Lal (PW 9) and Ami Lal (PW 10) proves the recovery of above mentioned articles from the scene of occurrence. (43). In order to prove that the sealed articles, had been safely placed in the Malkhana of the Police Station, Ramsinghpur, by depositing the same in the Malkhana by Rajendra Singh (PW 12) and P.C. Nyola (PW 14), the prosecution has produced Malkhana Incharge Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13). Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13) has stated on oath that on 29.11.1994 he was posted as Head Constable at the Police Station, Ramsinghpur and was working as Incharge of the Malkhana. According to him, 11 sealed packets were deposited by Rajendra Singh, Station House Officer of the Police Station in the `Malkhana on 29.11.1994 and they were entered at S.No. 58 of the Malkhana Register. The entry has been marked as Ex.P.37. Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13) has added that he kept the sealed packet in the Malkhana safely. It is stated by him that on 23.12.1994, Puran Singh, F.C. No. 783, working in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anoopgarh brought three packets in sealed condition for being deposited in the Malkhana and he deposited the same in the `Malkhana and he made entry at S.No. 62A which has been marked as Ex.P.38. Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13) has stated that he kept these packets safely in the Malkhana. It is further stated by Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13) that on 5.1.95, he handed over 14 packets in sealed condition to Prabhu Ram, F.C. No. 447 for being deposited at Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and made an entry in the Malkhana Register in this regard at place `A to `B. It is further stated by him that Prabhu Ram brought the receipt from the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and endorsement in this regard has been made in the Malkhana Register. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that his statement is open to any doubt. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that his statement is open to any doubt. We, therefore, do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13) who is a Malkhana Incharge who has proved that 14 packets had been deposited in the Malkhana in sealed condition and they remained in the sealed condition till they were handed over to Prabhu Ram, Constable, on 5.1.1995 for taking the same to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. (44). Prabhu Ram (PW 11) has stated on oath that on 5.1.95 he was posted as F.C. at the Police Station, Ramsinghpur and, on that day, 14 packets were handed over to him by Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13), Malkhana Incharge at the Police Station. It is further stated by him that these 14 packets were given to him with a letter issued by the office of the Superintendent of Police and Ex.P.20 is the copy of that letter. He has further added that he has deposited all the packets in the sealed condition at the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on 6.1.95 and obtained the Receipts Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 and the packets remained in the sealed condition so long they were in his possession. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Prabhu Ram (PW 11) to show that his statement is open to any doubt. We,therefore, have no option but to hold that the 14 packets which had been deposited at the Malkhana of the Police Station, Ramsinghpur, remained in the sealed condition throughout the period they were kept in the Malkhana and, later on during the tran-sit, before they were delivered at the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, by Prabhu Ram (PW 11). The report of the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur has been produced in evidence. This report has been marked as Ex.P.42. The report Ex.P.42 is in respect of 12 packets and closed within cloth. These packets had been marked as A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, A-4, D, E and F. The Receipts Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 were also issued by the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and both these Receipts show that the packets had been received in the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur in sealed condition. These packets had been marked as A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, A-4, D, E and F. The Receipts Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 were also issued by the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and both these Receipts show that the packets had been received in the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur in sealed condition. The contents of these Receipts, support the statement of Prabhu Ram (PW 11) and Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13), both of whom have deposed that the packets remained in sealed condition. (45). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the report of the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, the packets were bearing the exhibits marks A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, A-4, D, E and F as is indicated by the report Ex.P.42 but it has not been explained by the prosecution as to who place the markings on the packets and at what time. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in the absence of an explanation about the markings of exhibits on the packets, it may be inferred that the packets had been tampered with and, therefore, it is open to serious doubt whether the packets were received in the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur in the same condition in which they were sealed at the time of recovery of articles. We have carefully consider this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The entries of the Malkhana Register had been produced in evidence by the prosecution and they have been marked as Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38. The photo-stat copies of the entries of the Malkhana Register are on record and they are Ex.P.37A and Ex.P.38A. A perusal of Ex.P.37A clearly shows that when the packets were deposited in the `Malkhana on 29.11.94, the packets were bearing the exhibits marked A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, A-4. The packets No.11 which contained the hairs of the deceased was marked as P.1. Ex.P.38 shows that three packets had been deposited in the Malkhana on 23.12.94 and at the time of depositing the same in the Malkhana, the first two had been marked as D and E. The mark placed on the third packet containing `kassi is not entered in the Malkhana Register. Ex.P.38 shows that three packets had been deposited in the Malkhana on 23.12.94 and at the time of depositing the same in the Malkhana, the first two had been marked as D and E. The mark placed on the third packet containing `kassi is not entered in the Malkhana Register. It is therefore, obvious that packets had been deposited in the Malkhana on 29.11.94 and 23.12.94, were bearing the exhibits marks. The exhibits marks on the packet containing `kassi, is not mentioned in the Malkhana Register probably due to over sight by the Malkhana Incharge. In view of the fact that the packets were containing the exhibits marked on the date when they were deposited in the malkhana of the Police Station, it can be said without any hesitation that the exhibits marks had been given on the packets before they were deposited in the Malkhana and there is no reason to infer that these packets had been tampered with after they were deposited in the Malkh-ana and before their delivery at the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. A perusal of Ex.P.20 which is a carbon copy of the letter dated 5.1.95 issued by the office of the Superintendent of Police for sending sealed packets to the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, the exhibits marks have been mentioned and they are the same as entered in the Malkhana Register. In these circumstances,it is proper to infer that exhibits marks had been written on the packets at the time of their deposit in Malkhana of the Police Station, with a view to facilitate their identification at a latter stage. Kanhaiya Lal (PW 13) is the Malkhana Incharge has not been cross-examined regarding the marking of exhibits on the sealed packets deposited in the Malkhana and assuming that he had marked exhibits on the packets while depositing the same in the Malkhana, we find no reason to infer that he tampered with the contents of the packets in any manner because he has categorically stated that he had deposited and kept the sealed packets in the Malkhana in the same condition in which they were delivered to him. We, there-fore, do not find force in the submission that these packets had been tampered with before they reached the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory. (46). We, there-fore, do not find force in the submission that these packets had been tampered with before they reached the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory. (46). The report Ex.P.42 received from the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory shows that item-1, blood smeared soil found in packet Article 1, Item-3, blood smeared soil found in packet B-1, item-5, `chadar found in packet C-1, item-6, `nee-war found in packet C-II, item-7, blood smeared soil found in packet C-3, item-9, glass bottle found in packet A-4, item-10 shirt, item-11 loi, item-12 Baniyan, item-13 a pair of shoes, item-14 a purse with a diary, item-15 a lungi found in packet-D, item-16 a shirt, item-17 a pillow cover, item-18 a `chadar found in packet-E and item-19 found in packet-F all were stained with human blood. The report Ex. P.42 further shows that item-5 `chadar, item-6, `Neewar, item-10 shirt, item-12 Baniyan, item-16 a shirt, item-17 pillow cover, item-18 `chadar and item-19 `kassi were found to be stained with blood of group-B. Blood group on the remaining articles could not be determined. The report clearly shows that blood of the deceased Chandu Ram was of group-B and blood of the same group was found on the clothes as well as the pair of shoes and purse recovered from the `kui and the `kassi recovered from the house of the accused. In pursuance of the information given by accused Megh Raj, there is no explanation why the blood of group-B was found on the `kassi and the articles recovered from the `kui in pursuance of the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In our opinion, it is not a mere coincidence that stains of blood of group-B have been found on the `kassi and the articles recovered from the `kui at the instance of accused. having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that `kassi as well as clothes recovered in pursuance of the information given by the accused, were stai-ned with blood of the deceased Chandu Ram. The circumstantial evidence, produced by the prosecution in this regard, is cogent, satisfactory and not open to any doubt. (47). The circumstantial evidence, produced by the prosecution in this regard, is cogent, satisfactory and not open to any doubt. (47). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, in the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive for the commission of murder by the accused. It is also submitted by him that the First Information Report, was received by the Judicial Magistrate after considerable delay and, therefore, it would be proper to infer that the First Information Report was drawn after conducting investigation at the spot. We have considered this submission carefully. The endorsement made in the First Information Report Ex.P.1 shows that the First Information Report Ex.P.1 was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 29.11.94 at 2.30 P.M. by Ram Khilari F.C. 771. The entry of Ex.P.1 shows that the First Information Report was registered and recorded in the Rojnamcha of the Police Station at S.No. 1014, at 4.20 P.M. at 28.11.94 and the endorsement made on report Ex.P.2 shows that the report Ex.P.2 was submitted by Budh Ram at the Police Sta-tion at 4.20 P.M. at 28.11.94. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force in the submission that the First Information Report was recorded by the Police Officer not at the time when it purports to have been recorded but subsequently after conducting the investigation. So far as the motive is concerned, it is true that the prosecution has not produced evidence to prove the motive behind the murder, but it is well established that if there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who committed the murder, the omission on the part of the prosecution to prove motive for murder is not fatal to the prosecution. (48). For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in the case, is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Megh Raj who committed murder of Chandu Ram in the night intervening 27th and 28th of November, 1994 by inflicting several injuries which were found on the dead body during post-mortem examination. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused-appellant Megh Raj has been proved to be guilty of committing offence of murder. (49). The learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused-appellant Megh Raj has been proved to be guilty of committing offence of murder. (49). For the reasons stated above, we do not find any force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.