Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. The two appellants, namely, Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar, who are real brothers, have been convicted under Section 302/34, 364, 201 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge Ludhiana, for causing the murder of Amar Kumar Gupta, a broker. Both of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine each of them has been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine each of them has been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 201 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine each of them has been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. However, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Amar Kumar Gupta, the deceased, had dealings with the appellants as the latter were doing the business of yarn and the deceased was their broker. A sum of about Rs. 1,00,000/- was due to be paid to Amar Kumar Gupta by the appellants as brokerage charges. There was a bad blood between the two sides on that account. On 2nd February, 1994, Mohan Lal Jain P.W.8, husband of the sister of the wife of Amar Kumar Gupta, who had come from Pilibhit, allegedly left Amar Kumar Gupta at the place of the appellants on a scooter. However, Amar Kumar Gupta, did not return during the night. His wife Veena Gupta P.W.6 kept on waiting. The relations of deceased i.e. Mohan Lal Jain and others kept on searching the deceased on 2nd and 3rd of February, 1994. However, Amar Kumar Gupta, did not return during the night. His wife Veena Gupta P.W.6 kept on waiting. The relations of deceased i.e. Mohan Lal Jain and others kept on searching the deceased on 2nd and 3rd of February, 1994. On 4th of February, 1994, it was revealed that the appellants brought a wooden box for booking at Railway Station, Ludhiana, which was ultimately found to be containing the dead body wrapped in a glazed paper in the presence of Naval Singh, P.W.7, Surinder Singh, P.W.10 and Santokh Singh P.W.11, the Railway employees. The wooden box was allegedly brought by the accused in the ricksaw of Daya Ram P.W.5. 3. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that on 4.2.1994, Inspector Boota Ram, P.W.17, the Station House Officer, G.R.P.S. Ludhiana, received a message Ex. PG from the Chief Parcel Superintendent, Railway Station, Ludhiana, about the suspected box lying at the Railway Station and on its basis he made an entry in the Daily Diary Register. He went to the place where the parcel was lying. The box was found to have been booked "To-self Arun K.G. New Delhi". The Inspector approached the railway authorities and recovered the dead body of Amar Kumar Gupta from the said box in the presence of Naval Singh P.W.7, Dinesh Kumar P.W.9, Balbir Kumar and Vinod Kumar alias Nodhi etc. The dead body of the deceased was photographed. The photographs are Ex. P.45 to P.47 and the negatives are Ex. P.48 to Ex. P.50. Ruqa Ex. PL was sent to the G.R.P.S. Ludhiana and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PL/1 was recorded at 1.45 A.M. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 4.2.1994 at 3.00 P.M. He also prepared inquest report Ex. PC and sent the dead body for post-mortem. He also took into possession wooden box E.P. 1, two pieces of glazed papers Ex. P.7 and P.8, 17 pieces of gunny Tat Ex. P.9 to Ex. P.25, cotton Ex. P.26 and 12 pieces of iron strips Ex. P.27 to Ex. P.38 vide memo Ex. PJ. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PM of the place from where the dead body contained in the wooden box was recovered. A guard was put at the house of Ravinder Kumar accused. P.9 to Ex. P.25, cotton Ex. P.26 and 12 pieces of iron strips Ex. P.27 to Ex. P.38 vide memo Ex. PJ. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PM of the place from where the dead body contained in the wooden box was recovered. A guard was put at the house of Ravinder Kumar accused. On the night intervening 11/12.2.1994, Ravinder Kumar came, to his house and on seeing the guard he tried to run away and had also consumed some acid which was carried by him in a small bottle. He was arrested by the police and had to be admitted to C.M.C. Ludhiana as he tried to commit suicide. He was discharged from the hospital on 25.2.1994 and was formally arrested on the same day. His house was searched. The Investigating Officer took into possession a Patiala containing ink, a bottle of ink, iron strips wrench and black coloured tape vide memo Ex. P.W.14/A. On 4.3.1994, in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. P.W.13/A Ravinder Kumar accused got recovered gunny bag Ex. P.8 containing shirt Ex. P.9, pant P.10, Jersey P.11, Nylon Rassi Ex. P.12, note book Ex. P.13, Parchis Ex. P.14/1-21, Ex. P.15/1-11, Ex. P.15/1-10 from near the Budha Nullah in the area of Kashmir Nagar which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.W.13/C. Thereafter he got recovered scooter No. PAU-1715 from the cycle stand of Railway Station, Ludhiana which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.W.13/B. He also prepared rough site plan Ex. PO/1 of the place of occurrence. 4. On 2.5.1994, he received a TPM from S.H.O. Jind that Surinder Kumar accused was arrested by the police under the Arms Act. He obtained the custody of Surinder Kumar accused and formally arrested him on 7.5.1994 in this case. On 8.5.1994, Surinder Kumar accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. P.W.12/A got recovered bag Ex. P.6 containing writ watch Ex. P.5 and parchis Ex.PW1211 to P.W.12/19 from near the railway bridge on Budha Nullah, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.W.12/C. After completion of the investigation, the accused were sent to stand their trial. 5. Dr. S.K. Sharma, P.W.2, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Amar Kumar Gupta, on 4.2.1994 at 4.25 P.M. and found that the deceased was a fat man of the height of 61" and was having ligature mark all around the neck. P.W.12/C. After completion of the investigation, the accused were sent to stand their trial. 5. Dr. S.K. Sharma, P.W.2, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Amar Kumar Gupta, on 4.2.1994 at 4.25 P.M. and found that the deceased was a fat man of the height of 61" and was having ligature mark all around the neck. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation, which was sufficient to cause his death. Ex. PB is the copy of the post-mortem report. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, on the testimony of Mrs. Veena Gupta P.W.6 and Mohan Lal Jain P.W.8, who had left the deceased at the house of the appellants and, therefore, finding that the deceased was last seen with the appellants and that of Naval Singh P.W.7, Chief Parcel Supervisor, Railway Station, Ludhiana and Daya Ram P.W.5, a rickshaw puller, who had brought the box containing the dead body with the appellants and the fact that the railway officials already knew the appellants having been coming to the Railway Station for booking of articles and looking to the strong motive, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid and the defence that the appellants were innocent and falsely implicated was not believed. So, this brings the appellants in appeal. 7. Before a discussion on the arguments is ventured, it would be necessary that still a brief reference to the evidence on record as to what the witnesses have actually stated, may be narrated to get a birds eye view of the testimony of the witnesses. 8. Mohan Lal Jain P.W.8, is the husband of the sister of the wife of the deceased and he resides in Pooranpur, district Pillibhit. He has narrated that he had come on 2.2.1994 to Ludhiana. In fact Amar Kumar Guptas daughter was ailing and he had come to Ludhiana to enquire about her welfare. He has several other relations in Ludhiana. He found that Surinder Kumar and Nitu alias Ravinder Kumar appellants came to the house of the deceased and wanted to settle the accounts and the appellants asked the deceased to accompany them. In fact Amar Kumar Guptas daughter was ailing and he had come to Ludhiana to enquire about her welfare. He has several other relations in Ludhiana. He found that Surinder Kumar and Nitu alias Ravinder Kumar appellants came to the house of the deceased and wanted to settle the accounts and the appellants asked the deceased to accompany them. So Surinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar went to their house on a scooter and since this witness was also to go to that area i.e. Harbanspura situated in the area of Division No. 3, Ludhiana, he accompanied Amar Kumar Gupta on another scooter and leaving Amar Kumar Gupta with Surinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar appellants he went to meet his other relations. He stayed with his relations during the night but he was later on i.e. on 3.2.1994 told that Amar Kumar Gupta did not return home on 2.2.1994. It was on 4.2.1994 that he came to know that a wooden box was found on the Railway Station, Ludhiana, containing the dead body of the deceased. In cross-examination he clarified that two sisters of his father, namely, Suhagwanti and Bimla Devi were married in Ludhiana. One of his fathers sisters is residing in Green Park, Ludhiana and the other on Gill Road, Ludhiana. Both these places are prominent locality of this industrial town. His wifes three sisters are married in Ludhiana. One of them is married with Ashok Kumar Gupta deceased and the other with Rajinder Kumar and both of them are residing at Madhopuri whereas the third is married to Vijay Kumar Gupta and is residing at Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana. So the fact that several relations of this witness are already residing in Ludhiana could not be controverted nor can actually be doubted. On 4.2.1994, he reached the Railway Station, Ludhiana around 3.30 or 4.00 P.M. along with wifes sister husband Vijay Kumar. At least 250 persons from the public were also present there. Dinesh Kumar P.W.9, was also present there. The police recorded his statement and he told the police that he had left Amar Kumar Gupta deceased with the accused persons. He clarified that he actually got down from Punjab Mail train at about 6/6.30 A.M. on 2.2.1994 and had gone to the house of Amar Kumar Gupta straightway. Dinesh Kumar P.W.9, was also present there. The police recorded his statement and he told the police that he had left Amar Kumar Gupta deceased with the accused persons. He clarified that he actually got down from Punjab Mail train at about 6/6.30 A.M. on 2.2.1994 and had gone to the house of Amar Kumar Gupta straightway. He fiuther clarified that daughter of Ashok Kumar Gupta was lying in the hospital and, therefore, he had come to see her. He was told on 3.2.1994 by Rajinder Kumar husband of his wifes another sister that Ashok Kumar had not reached home. Even on 3.2.1994 he along with Rajinder Kumar had gone to the house of the accused which was found locked but he did not tell this fact to Veena Gupta, the wife of the deceased. He met Veena Gupta on 3.2.1994 at about 5.00 P.M. He did not feel the necessity to tell the police that Amar Kumar Gupta had not been available or made any serious efforts to search Amar Kumar Gupta except that he had gone to the house of the accused persons feeling that the deceased did not return home because of his business affairs. he did not raise any hue and cry. He in the meanwhile had gone to purchase hosiery items like Shawls, Jerseys, sweaters etc. but he did not obtain any cash memos from the shop-keepers. 9. Veena Gupta P.W.6, widow of Amar Kumar the other witness stated that the accused persons had come to her house and had taken her husband for settling the accounts. She has also made a detailed statement that Mohan Lal Jain PW.8 is her sisters husband and had come on 2.2.1994 and had left her husband at the place of the appellants and thereafter only his dead body was found at the Railway Station. She also claimed in cross-examination that she had told Dinesh Kumar PW.9, that Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar alias Nitu had taken her husband on 2.2.1994. Her neighbour Pawan Kumar Sharma and her husbands younger brother Dinesh Kumar P.W.9 had gone in search of the deceased and they met her again on 3.2.1994 at about 12.00 noon. Her statement was only recorded on 5.2.1994 and till then she did not go to any Police Station to lodge a report about her missing husband. Her neighbour Pawan Kumar Sharma and her husbands younger brother Dinesh Kumar P.W.9 had gone in search of the deceased and they met her again on 3.2.1994 at about 12.00 noon. Her statement was only recorded on 5.2.1994 and till then she did not go to any Police Station to lodge a report about her missing husband. However she claimed that she had asked her aforesaid relations to approach the police. 10. Dinesh Kumar P.W.9, is the real younger brother of the deceased and he narrated that he had been searching for the deceased on 2.2.1994 and 3.2.1994. In cross-examination he claimed that the did not approach Veena Gupta on 2.2.1994 when despite the search he did not find the deceased. He told Veena Gupta that he had searched Amar Kumar Gupta on the night of 2.2.1994. He has a telephone at his residence. He claimed that he even did not contact Veena Gupta PW.6 despite knowing that a box containing the dead body was lying on the Railway Station. So, these are the witnesses relating to the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellants and that they conducted the search. 11. In brief it may also be mentioned now that Santokh Singh P.W.11, is the Bilty Broker in the Railway Station, Ludhiana. He claimed that on 2.2.1994 around 4.30 P.M. Surinder Kumar and Nitu alias Ravinder Kumar appellants came to him outside the Parcel room at the Railway Station, Ludhiana for getting a box Ex. P1 booked and the following words were written on that : "To Self Arun K.G/1, New Delhi" 12. They brought the said box in a ricksaw and asked him to book the box and the box in the name of firm Kapoor Kanitting, Harbans Pura. He claimed that the appellants had been coming earlier also for booking of the boxes as such. The appellants insisted to book the box the same day and wanted this witness that this box be placed in the Goods train for destination the same day. However, the box could go the next day as no train was available on that day. The box was taken to the weighing scale which weighed 152 Kgs. Surinder Singh PW.10, the Parcel Marker was also present with him when the appellants brought the said box and entered into conversation with the witness. However, the box could go the next day as no train was available on that day. The box was taken to the weighing scale which weighed 152 Kgs. Surinder Singh PW.10, the Parcel Marker was also present with him when the appellants brought the said box and entered into conversation with the witness. However, Surinder Singh, Parcel Marker, after looking to the weight of the box claimed that the same could not be booked as it was a heavy one and found something fishy as something was rolling inside and he told Shiara Ram, Parcel Supervisor about it. When the Shiara Ram asked for removal of the wooden box outside the parcel house, both the appellants offered money for booking the box and then the box was kept outside the Parcel House. His partner Vinod Kumar came to him on 3.2.1994 and asked him as to why the box was lying and why the box remained unbooked and Santokh Singh narrated the entire story to Vinod Kumar also. Vinod Kumar approached the house of the accused appellants where their mother was present and she told Vinod Kumar that her sons were away. On 4.2.1994, he claimed that there was a hue and cry on the Railway Station and the G.R.P.S. people opened the wooden box. Surinder Singh P.W.10 entirely supported the version of Santokh Singh and claimed that there was something fishy. He also knew the accused appellants who had brought the box. He claimed that he narrated the entire conversation to Shiara Ram, Chief Parcel Supervisor and when the police came the box was opened in their presence and a dead body of male was found on 4.2.1994. Naval Singh P.W.7 is the Chief Parcel Supervisor and he stated that on 4.2.1994 the aforesaid railway officials came to him and informed him about the unclaimed box lying out side. The police recovered the dead body from the box Ex. P1 in his presence. 13. Besides this Daya Ram P.W.5, is a rickshaw puller who stated that he was known to both the appellants since long and they were Proprietors of a Hosiery business in Ludhiana, in Mohalla Tajpura near Mohalla Harbans Pura. They had been hiring his rickshaw earlier also for transportation of the hosiery goods from factory to Railway Station, Ludhiana. He specifically claimed that both the appellants brought the box Ex. They had been hiring his rickshaw earlier also for transportation of the hosiery goods from factory to Railway Station, Ludhiana. He specifically claimed that both the appellants brought the box Ex. P1 in his rickshaw to the Railway Station for booking on 2.2.1994. In cross-examination, he claimed that he was married and had two children. He was plying rickshaw in Ludhiana for the last 17 years. 14. Vinod Kumar Goyal P.W.14 was present on 5.2.1994 when the lock of the house of the appellants was opened and plastic bottle of blue colour in which there was ink Ex. P.43, Patila Ex. P.40 made of brass, iron strip Ex. P.41, pliers Ex. P.42 and black tape Ex. P.44 were recovered. The other witnesses i.e. Bharat Bhushan P.W.12 and Krishan Lal P.W.13 deposed regarding the recoveries of clothes and others articles at the instance of the appellants as mentioned above. 15. Swatantar Kumar, P.W.15 is a Medical Practitioner and he had purchased scooter No. PAV-1715 and sold it to Amar Kumar Gupta in the year 1992. The scooter is Ex. P.7 recovered at the instance of the accused. A medical slip regarding the treatment of the deceased "Amar Kumar Gupta has been proved by Dr. (Mrs.) Kanwalajit Kaur Arora, P.W.1. Dalbir Kumar P.W.16, who is a Photographer took the photographs Ex. P.45 to P.47 negatives of which are Ex. P.48 and P.50. Harminder Singh P.W.4, Draftsman, prepared the site plan Ex. PE. 16. Inspector Boota Ram P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer and his statement need not be mentioned as the aforesaid investigation was carried out by him. 17. The plea of the defence is that of simple denial and nothing else and they have not claimed any specific plea or special defence. Nor they have produced any evidence in defence. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in fact conduct of Veena Gupta PW. 6 has been absolutely unnatural and she did not approach the police immediately when her husband did not return home. Nor they have produced any evidence in defence. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in fact conduct of Veena Gupta PW. 6 has been absolutely unnatural and she did not approach the police immediately when her husband did not return home. Even Mohan Lal Jain P.W.8, who is stated to have come from Pillibit has behaved in an indifferent manner when he found the husband of his wifes sister missing he did not lodge the report with the police nor even conveyed to the husbands of his other sisters that he suspected the hand of the appellants as he had left the deceased at their place. It is also claimed that despite the fact that all these persons had telephones they did not inform the police on telephone. He also urged that in fact the witness Mohan Lal Jain was summoned from Pilibhit and was introduced as a witness later on. According to him, it was a belated FIR and no prompt action was taken. Even the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the box as such did not connect the complicity of the appellants that they had killed the deceased. It was also contended that even when there was a mention of names, of the appellants in Ex. PG, a report recorded by the G.R.P.S. no strict action was taken. 19. It may, however, be noted that Ludhiana is an indudrial town and known for inductry of Hosiery. There are many industries of Hosiery in this city. There is no denial or nothing is contradicted that the appellants were dealing in hosiery business and the deceased was a broker. It has also come into evidence that the appellants had a dispute with the deceased. It is true that the police did not seize any accounts but in the absence of the account books it cannot be said that there was no dispute between the deceased and the appellants. Why Veena Gupta and Mohan Lal Jain would concoct a story of the brokerage money which the appellants owed to the deceased. There is nothing unusual that such disputes do take place and such crimes being committed are also not uncommon. So the appellants had actual motive to resort to some action against the deceased when the appellants were dissatisfied over the claim of the deceased against them. There is nothing unusual that such disputes do take place and such crimes being committed are also not uncommon. So the appellants had actual motive to resort to some action against the deceased when the appellants were dissatisfied over the claim of the deceased against them. Large number of relations of Mohan Lal Jain are actually living in Ludhiana He claimed that he had been visiting this place time and again. He has named a large number of his close relations living in the city and if a false case was to be concocted or somebody else was to be introduced as a witness there was no dearth of such people when the deceaseds own younger brother Dinesh Kumar, wife Veena Gupta and her other sisters were married at Ludhiana and were living in the same town. So there would have been no necessity for calling Mohan Lal Jain from Pilibhit to become a witness. In such like cases it is natural that when a person is missing, especially a person dealing with the business, who has to be away from home occasionally, does not return home in time a sense of worry creeps in the mind. The relations would make an effort to search for him. This is natural conduct of the relations of such a person and not unusual in any way. Even the police does not easily record the report of a missing person unless specifically written and handed over but still the relations and concerned person had a hope that if the person returns it is well and good. By the night of 2.2.1994 a search had been made and the relations of the deceased were contacted on 3.2.1994 and still the efforts were on. The various prosecution witnesses referred to above met each other and even went to the house of the appellants which was found locked and at one time their mother was available. So it is not anything strange that the report was lodged actually when it had become final that the deceased was the one who was found in the wooden box Ex. P1 and had been killed. Soon after recording of the report and the statements of the witnesses, it is natural that in such cases the investigation travels backward. So it is not anything strange that the report was lodged actually when it had become final that the deceased was the one who was found in the wooden box Ex. P1 and had been killed. Soon after recording of the report and the statements of the witnesses, it is natural that in such cases the investigation travels backward. In such circumstances, it was not a case that the appellants had actually filled up any form to dispatch the wooden box. At the very initial stage the railway officials and the broker got suspicious as the box was lying abandoned in the outskirts of the Railway Station or near the Parcel Office. So it is not expected that any handwriting of the appellants was required to be taken to compare the same. Nor any identification parade of the appellants was required as they were very well known to the rickshaw puller and the railway officials. The conduct of the appellants could not be controverted that they even tried to hasten the despatch of the wooden box as well even offered bribe to expedite the despatch by same train or in some other manner. So when the appellants have been found carrying the dead body of the deceased they would actually be liable for the murder of the deceased. The circumstance that the accused were carrying the dead body is more than a sufficient circumstance that they were to explain how the dead body came to them. Surinder Singh P.W.10 Parcel Marker, Santokh Singh P.W.11 and Naval Singh P.W.7, Chief Parcel Supervisor, have no animus of any kind against the appellants nor anything has been suggested in their cross- examination that they had any reason to involve them falsely in this case. The evidence of the railway officials is that of totally disinterested, natural and truthful witnesses. These witnesses came into picture only when the appellants took the dead body in a wooden box to Railway Station for booking otherwise these witnesses could not have come into the picture. Similarly the ricksaw puller, may be a poor person living from hand to mouth and otherwise small in status but he is truthful and he has said in so many words that the appellants brought the box to the Railway Station in his rickshaw. He knew the appellants since before. Similarly the ricksaw puller, may be a poor person living from hand to mouth and otherwise small in status but he is truthful and he has said in so many words that the appellants brought the box to the Railway Station in his rickshaw. He knew the appellants since before. The argument that such rickshaw pullers can be pressurised by the police to become witnesses is without any force. There is no reason for the police in this case to collect the false witnesses against the appellants. The recoveries of articles belonging to the deceased have been effected at the instance of the appellants which has been duly proved. 20. There is an authority of the Apex Court in Awadhi Yadav and another v. The State of Bihar, 1971 Crl. L.J. 23, which mentions that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and it is found that the dead body of the deceased was being carried by the accused persons and when the accused had furnished no explanation, the inference would always be there that they had committed the murder. So it appears that there is more than ample evidence in the case against the appellants to prove their complicity in the crime and we are of the firm view that the appellants and none else had committed the cool blooded murder of the deceased, instead of paying his dues they have done him to death. In a way paid him in this brutal manner. There is no reason to differ with the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge. 21. In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed.