M.Karpagavinayagam, J.: The appellants Liyagath Ali and Nawab alias Pallan have filed these two appeals in C.A.Nos.168 of 1994 and 992 of 1997 respectively challenging the conviction for the offences under Secs.120-B read with 302, 364 and 302, I.P.C. and sentence to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.500, in default to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec.364, I.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Sec.120-B read with Sec.302, I.P.C. 2. The gravamen of the charge is that on 22.1.1992 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellants and P.W.1 approver Ravi hatched a conspiracy against the deceased Abdul Aziz alias Indias and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the deceased was abducted in an auto at 10.30 p.m. and in a secluded placed, the accused 1 and 2 with the assistance of the approver, indiscriminately had stabbed the deceased and thrown the body in the vacant maidhan. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1, the approver and the witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.27, Exs.P-1 to P-26 and M.O.1 to M.O.19, the trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence referred to above. 3. The minimal facts which are essential to have the full picture of the case of the prosecution, are to be stated hereunder: "(a) P.W.1 Ravi, the approver is the native of Palghat, Kerala. He came to Coimbatore and joined as an auto Driver with P.W.12 Aaroon Batcha, who is the owner of the auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TCC. 8037. The appellant Liyagath Ali (A-1) also is an auto driver. The appellant Nawab alias Pallan (A-2) is the friend of both the first appellant and P.W.1. Normally, P.W.1 would be waiting in the auto stand in Rettai Pipe Maidhan situate in N.H.Road, Coimbatore for hire. The deceased Indias is a local resident of Coimbatore. (b) On 22.1.1992 at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased came to P.W.1 and asked him to take the auto for hire. Since P.W.1 knew that that the deceased was a rowdy element, he refused to oblige. Then, the deceased getting angry took out a knife and attempted to attack P.W.1. On fearing the assault, P.W.1 was running. At that time P.W.7 Mohammed, P.W.10 Kareem alias Babuji, P.W.9 Hussain, P.W.11 Rahamathullah preagented the deceased Indias from attacking P.W.1. Since P.W.1 knew that that the deceased was a rowdy element, he refused to oblige. Then, the deceased getting angry took out a knife and attempted to attack P.W.1. On fearing the assault, P.W.1 was running. At that time P.W.7 Mohammed, P.W.10 Kareem alias Babuji, P.W.9 Hussain, P.W.11 Rahamathullah preagented the deceased Indias from attacking P.W.1. P.W.1 ran from the stand and went to a party Office and informed one Sarthar Bai about the act of the deceased. Then, the said Sathar Bai advised him to report to the B-4 Police Station. However, P.W.1 said that he would not complaint as he was afraid of the deceased. (c) On the same day at about at 4.30 p.m., P.W.1 Ravi informed about the incident to Nawab, the second accused. Then, he asked P.W.1 as to why he did not retaliate by attacking Indias. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to other places for hire and came back at 8.00 p.m. P.W.1 met both the appellants in the auto stand. All of them went to Viji Wines and consumed Brandy. Subsequently, they came back to Rettai Pipe Maidhan auto stand. (d) At about 9.00 p.m., the second accused came with Indias. Then, all the three persons along with Indias got into the auto and proceeded towards the Church near the over-bridge. Near a petty shop, the auto was stopped. Accused 1 and 2 and P.W.1 got down and went to the petty shop for purchasing cigarette. At that time, the first accused asked P.W.1 Ravi to finish up Indias by stabbing with Knife. However, P.W.1 said that he would not do so, as he was afraid of him. Therefore, the first accused came back to the auto and he was driving the vehicle. P.W.1 and the second accused were sitting in rear seat along with the deceased. (e) At about 10.00 p.m., the auto reached Geeth Wines. All the four went to the Wine shop and consumed Brandy. Thereafter, they left the place with auto and the auto was proceeding towards Muthukumar Nagar. At about 10.30 p.m., the auto was stopped near Textool Lakshmipuram in Muthukumar Nagar. At that time, the second caught hold of the legs of the deceased The first accused asked P.W.1 to gag the mouth of the deceased. The first accused took out M.O.16 button knife and stabbed the deceased on chest, hip and other parts of the body. At about 10.30 p.m., the auto was stopped near Textool Lakshmipuram in Muthukumar Nagar. At that time, the second caught hold of the legs of the deceased The first accused asked P.W.1 to gag the mouth of the deceased. The first accused took out M.O.16 button knife and stabbed the deceased on chest, hip and other parts of the body. The second accused also after getting the knife from him also stabbed the deceased on his back. Due to stab injuries, the deceased Indias died instantaneously inside the auto. Then, all of them carried the body of Indias and threw it in the vacant maidhan. (f) Then, the auto was driven by the first accused and all of them reached a pupil pipe situated near Meenumix. The accused 1 and 2 P.W.1 washed their hands and the auto in the pipe. Thereafter, the accused 1 and 2 got down in N.H.Road. Before leave the place, they threatened P.W.1 approver Ravi that if he reveals anything, he would also be facing the same fate. (g) Next day on 23.1.1992, P.W.1 took the auto to the workshop wherein P.W.21 was working as a Mechanic. Alter leaving the auto in that workshop, he requested P.W.21 to effect the repairs. Then, he left the place stating that he was going for his native place Vadakkancherry in Kerala. On 23.1.1992, the second accused who removed M.O.10 Watch from the deceased while throwing the body, pledged the same with one Babu (P.W.19) and had taken Rs.100 from him. (h) In the mean time, P.W.2, Village Administrative Officer noticed a dead body lying in the vacant space and gave a report (Ex.P-1) to B3 Police Station. P.W.2 5 Sub Inspector of Police registered the case as ‘suspicious death’. P.W.26 the Inspector of Police, B4 Police Station, who was in additional charge of B3 Police Station, took up the investigation and on seeing the stab injuries on the body, he altered the case into an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-15 and rough sketch Ex.P-25. He conducted inquest and the inquest report is Ex.P-26. (i) During the course of inquest, the identify of the body was not known. Therefore, it was arranged to publish the photo of the dead body in the evening Newspapers. He conducted inquest and the inquest report is Ex.P-26. (i) During the course of inquest, the identify of the body was not known. Therefore, it was arranged to publish the photo of the dead body in the evening Newspapers. On seeing the evening newspaper, P.W.4, the father of the deceased and P.W.6, the father-in-law of the deceased came to B3 Police Station and identified the body as that of the deceased Indias. (j) On 24.2.1992, the Inspector of Police sent a requisition to P.W.3 Dr.Ramalingam to conduct post-mortem. During the post-mortem, P.W.3 found the following injuries; (1) An incised transverse wound 11 x 2 cm. muscle deep covered with dried blood seen on the right side neck to the midline neck. (2) An incised oval shaped would 2 x 1 cm. muscle deep situated on the left side neck 4 cm. below the age of the mandible. (3) An incised oval shaped wound 2 x 1 cm. muscle deep situated on the left supra clavicular region. (4) An oval shaped stab wound 3 x 1 cm. bone deep situated on the left 7th intercostal space 3 cm. outer to the midline. (5) An oval shaped stab wound 3 x 1 cm. cavity deep situated on the 6th intercostal space 8 cm outer to the midline. (6) An oval shaped stab wound 3 x 1 cm. muscle deep situated on the 8th intercostal space 15 cm. outer to the midline. (7) An oval shaped stab wound 3 x 1 cm. muscle deep situated on the left shoulder region. (8) An oval shaped stab wound 3 x 1 cm. muscle deep situated on the left upper arm. (9) An oval shaped stab wound 3 x 1 cm. cavity deep situated on the right epigastric region. (10) An incised oval shaped wound 3 x 2 cm. muscle deep situated on the posterior aspect of left thigh. (11) An incised wound 3 x 1 cm. muscle deep spindle shaped situated on the posterior aspect of the left thigh 3 cm. below the wound No.10. (12) An incised wound 4 x 1 cm. muscle deep spindle shaped wound situated on the posterior aspect of the right thigh. (13) An incised wound 4 x 1 cm. muscle deep spindle shaped wound seen on the posterior aspect of the right thigh 4 cm. below the wound No.13. below the wound No.10. (12) An incised wound 4 x 1 cm. muscle deep spindle shaped wound situated on the posterior aspect of the right thigh. (13) An incised wound 4 x 1 cm. muscle deep spindle shaped wound seen on the posterior aspect of the right thigh 4 cm. below the wound No.13. (14) Linear abrasions seen on the following regions; left fore head (1), right chin (1), right submandibular region (1) left lower neck (3) left upper chest (1), left lower chest (1), left nipple outer aspect (1), left lower third fore arm (1) left dorsal hand (1), left joint (1) and left popliteal region (1). He issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P-3. He opined in the certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock as a result of the multiple injuries, (k) P.W.27, the Inspector of Police continued the investigation and examined P.W.7, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12. In the meantime, he received the news that the second appellant (A-2) Nawab surrendered before the Court on 7.2.1992 in this case. (l) On 11.2.1992, the first appellant (A-1) confessed before one Chandrasekar, the friend of P.W.24 Ravi and requested him to take him to Police Station. Accordingly, he was handed over to police. P.W.27, the Inspector of Police arrested the first accused on the same day and in his confession, M.O.16 bloddstanding button knife and M.O.17 bloodstained tericotton shirt were seized. Thereafter, the first accused was remanded to judicial custody. (m) On 13.2.1992, P.W.27, the Inspector of Police, filed an application before the Court concerned requesting for custody of the second accused. Accordingly, the custody was taken on 14.2.1992. On the confession of the second accused, M.O.10 H.M.T. watch which was pledged to P.W.19 was recovered. This was subsequently identified to be that of the deceased by P.W.6., the father-in-law of the deceased. (n) On getting the information that the police are searching for approver Ravi (P.W.1), he felt that he shall confess the crime committed by him to this friend P.W.20 Sunil at Coimbatore. Therefore, on 15.2.1992 he came to Coimbatore and made extra-judicial confession to P.W.20 and sought his help for surrendering to the police. Accordingly, on 16.2.1992 P.W.20 handed over P.W.1 Ravi in B3 Police Station. On being surrendered, he was arrested and on his confession, the auto M.O.1 and bloodstained Khaki shirt of P.W.1 were recovered. Therefore, on 15.2.1992 he came to Coimbatore and made extra-judicial confession to P.W.20 and sought his help for surrendering to the police. Accordingly, on 16.2.1992 P.W.20 handed over P.W.1 Ravi in B3 Police Station. On being surrendered, he was arrested and on his confession, the auto M.O.1 and bloodstained Khaki shirt of P.W.1 were recovered. The Mahazar was attested by P.W.20 Sunil and P.W.21, the Mechanic working in the workshop. (o) Since P.W.1 Ravi, who was the third accused, during the course of investigation was in a mood to give a confession statement before the Magistrate, the investigating officer sent Ex.P-4 to the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore requesting to record his statement. Accordingly, he was produced on 20.2.1992. Again, he was asked to be produced on 21.2.1992. After observing all the formalities, P.W.8, the Judicial magistrate No.1, Coimbatore recorded the confession statement from P.W.1 Ravi which is Ex.P.5. (p) During the course of investigation, it was felt that the third accused can be made as an approver, in view of the fact this that it was a case of gang murder without any eye-witness. Therefore the investigating officer sent Ex.P-18 requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.W.23) to record his statement and accord pardon to A-3. In pursuance of the requisition, he was directed to be produced before P.W.23. After verification of the statement and after obtaining his further statement, P.W.23 accorded pardon (proceedings Ex.P-19) to him and directed to treat him as an approver. (q) During the course of investigation, the properties seized under various mahazars from the place of occurrence and the clothes and other articles seized from the accused were sent for chemical analysis. After getting the report, the final report was filed by the investigating officer against the appellants for the offences under Secs.120-B, 364 and 302, I.P.C." 4. After conclusion of trial, both the appellants were questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials available on record. The first accused stated that P.W. 1 approver Ravi is inimical towards him and he was taken to police custody as early as 30.1.1992 as if he assaulted P.W.1, that on 30.1.1992 itself, P.W.1 Ravi, P.W.20 Sunil and P. W.24 Ravi were in the B3 Station and as such, he did not commit any offence. The first accused stated that P.W. 1 approver Ravi is inimical towards him and he was taken to police custody as early as 30.1.1992 as if he assaulted P.W.1, that on 30.1.1992 itself, P.W.1 Ravi, P.W.20 Sunil and P. W.24 Ravi were in the B3 Station and as such, he did not commit any offence. The second accused in reply would state that his father was taken into police custody by B3 Police on suspicion and on coming to know that he was also being searched for, he surrendered before the Court and as such, the case filed against him is a false one. 5. On analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the statement given by the accused 1 and 2, the trial Court found both the accused guilty for the offences referred to above. Questioning this verdict, these two appeals have been filed by A-1 and A-2. 6. Mr.Kalyanasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the first accused Liyagath Ali, the appellant in C.A.No.168 of 1994, would contend as follows: ”P.W.1’s evidence cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that this evidence is quite contrary to the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. The medical evidence also is contrary to his ocular testimony. P.W.1, who used to be afraid of every thing would not have accompanied the deceased along with the other accused and participated in the occurrence. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by P.W.27, the investigating officer. According to P.W.1, he came and surrendered before the police, since police came to Vadakkancherry, Kerala in search of him. But P.W.27 investigating Officer would state that they never went to Vadakkancherry and enquired about P.W.1. Moreover P.W.1 did not refer about P.W.20 Sunil in his statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. When P.W.1 would state that he himself and accused 1 and 2 washed M.O.1 auto and M.O.16 button knife after commission of the offence, it is strange to see that the said M.O.16 was recovered by the investigating officer on the confession of A-1 from the bush which is very close to the occurrence place, that too, with blood stain. Furthermore, P.W.1 is not able to identify M.O.16 knife in the Court. There is no iota of evidence with regard to conspiracy. Moreover, P.W.1’s evidence has not been corroborated by the acceptable materials. Therefore the first accused is entitled to be acquitted." 7. Furthermore, P.W.1 is not able to identify M.O.16 knife in the Court. There is no iota of evidence with regard to conspiracy. Moreover, P.W.1’s evidence has not been corroborated by the acceptable materials. Therefore the first accused is entitled to be acquitted." 7. Mr.Sudanthiram, the learned counsel for the second accused Nawab, the appellant in C.A.No.992 of 1997, would urge the following contentions, while adopting the arguments of the counsel for the first accused: "The statement of P.W.1 under Sec.164, Crl.P.C and his deposition would not indicate that he gave an inculpatory statement. The reading of the entire statement would show that he was not a willing party for the offence. In short, it could be stated that he wants to escape from the punishment of crime by putting the blame on the other accused. Furthermore, the extra-judicial confession made by P.W.1 to P.W.20 cannot be used against the other accused, namely, A-1 and A-2. Sec.30 of the Evidence Act also would not apply to the present case, since the third accused had been made as an approver and consequently, he was made as a witness as P.W.1. Furthermore, P.W.1 is not a reliable person, since he was pressurised to give such a statement implicating A-1 and A-2, as if he did not take active part in the grave crime on the assurance that he would be relieved from the punishment for the offence of murder. Therefore, the second accused also is liable to be acquitted." 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in reply to the said submissions, would contend that P.W.1 is a reliable witness and his evidence has been amply corroborated by sufficient materials and as such, the reasonings given by the trial Court for convicting the accused 1 and 2 are justified and the judgment impugned does not warrant any interference. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions and also gone through the records. 10. The counsel for the appellants would cite the following authorities in order to show how the approver’s evidence can be appreciated: (1) Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 637; (2) Saravanabhavan v. State of Madras, 1966 Crl. L.J. 949; (3) Ranjeeth Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 672; (4) Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1320. 11. L.J. 949; (3) Ranjeeth Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 672; (4) Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1320. 11. There is no dispute in the legal position that the approver has to pass a twin test: (1) the approver must be a reliable witness; (2) his evidence shall be supported by sufficient corroboration of material particulars. On the basis of this principle, so many guidelines have been given by the Supreme Court in the matter of evaluating the approver’s evidence. The guidelines are as follows: (A) The first initial question to consider is whether even as an accomplice the approver is a reliable witness. If the answer to this question is against the approver, then there is an end of the matter. No question as to whether his evidence is corroborated or not fails to be considered. (B) The appreciation of an approver’s evidence has to satisfy double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied, the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver’s evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. (C) It would not be right to expect that such independent corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted, it would render the evidence of the approver wholly superfluous. On the other hand, it would not be safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in minor particulars or incidental details, because in such a case, corroboration does not afford the necessary assurance that the main story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably and safely accepted as true. (D) Generally speaking this corroboration is of two kinds. Firstly, the Court has to satisfy itself that the statement of the approver is credible in itself and there is evidence other than the statement of the approver that the approver himself had taken part in the crime. (D) Generally speaking this corroboration is of two kinds. Firstly, the Court has to satisfy itself that the statement of the approver is credible in itself and there is evidence other than the statement of the approver that the approver himself had taken part in the crime. Secondly, after the Court is satisfied that the approver’s statement is credible and his apart in the crime is corroborated by other evidence, the Court seeks corroboration of the approver’s evidence with respect to the part of other accused persons in the crime, and this evidence has to be of such a nature as to connect the other accused with the crime. (E) It cannot be said that the evidence of an approver has to be dealt with in two watertight compartments. It must be considered as a whole along with other evidence. Even so, the Court has to consider whether the approver’s evidence is credible in itself and in doing so, it may refer to such corroborative pieces of evidence as may be available. (F) Under Sec.133 of the Evidence Act, an acompliance is a competent witness against an accused person and conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accompliance. Even so, Sec.114 of the Evidence Act, it is provided that a Court may presume that an accompliance is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. So ordinarily a Court seeks for corroboration of the evidence of an approver before convicting an accused person on that evidence. (G) An accompliance is undoubtedly a competent witness under the Evidence Act. But, the very fact that he has participated in the commission of the offence introduces a serious taint in his evidence. Therefore, the Courts are naturally reluctant to act on such tainted evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars. (H) While looking for corroboration, we must first look at the broad spectrum of the approver’s version and then find out whether there is other evidence to lend assurance to that version. The nature and extent of the corroboration may depend upon the facts of each case. The corroboration need not be of any direct evidence. The said corroboration even by circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. The nature and extent of the corroboration may depend upon the facts of each case. The corroboration need not be of any direct evidence. The said corroboration even by circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. (I) Even when the approver did not state in his statement that he took active part in the attack on the deceased, his statement can be acted upon when it is shown that he was a privy or an abettor in the commission of the offence. When the Magistrate finds that he is abettor of the offence, he can grant pardon to the approver after he was fully satisfied that the approver has given a full and complete disclosure of the offence committed by the other accused with the assistance of the approver. 12. In the light of the above principles laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, let us now consider whether the approver has passed a twin test in this case. 13. In order to find out whether P.W.1 approver is a reliable witness, we have necessarily to see some of the features in the evidence available in his statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. (Ex.P-5) and his deposition made before the Court. The following are the features: (A) On 22.1.1992 at about 2.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was sitting in the auto waiting for the hire, the deceased asked him to take the auto for hire. He did not oblige for the same. Therefore, the deceased took out a knife and attempted to attack P.W.1. On seeing this incident, the witnesses gathered there, pacified the deceased and sent him away. P.W.1 immediately ran from the scene and took shelter from one Sathar Bai who was working in his party Office near the auto stand. (B) At about 4.30 p.m., on coming to know about the incident, the second accused questioned P.W.1 as to why he did not attack the deceased while he was attempting to attack on him. Thereafter, they again met at 8.00 p.m. (C) When all the three gathered in the auto stand at 8.00 p.m., they decided to consume Brandy in the shop of Viji Wines. They went and consumed Brandy and came back. At about 9.30 p.m. the second accused brought the deceased Indias to the auto stand and thereafter, all the four left the place and proceeded towards the church. They went and consumed Brandy and came back. At about 9.30 p.m. the second accused brought the deceased Indias to the auto stand and thereafter, all the four left the place and proceeded towards the church. (D) Near a petty shop, the auto was stopped. The accused 1 and 2 and P.W.1 got down and purchases cigarettes. At that time, A-1 asked P.W.1 to stab the deceased. But he refused, since he was afraid of him. Therefore, A-1 said that he would do it. Then, A-1 was driving the auto and P.W.1 and A-2 were sitting in the rear seat. (E) At about 10.00 p.m. all the four went to Geeth Wines and purchased Brandy bottle and consumed Brandy. From there, they proceeded to the scene place and stopped near the vacant maidhan. Thereafter stopping the auto, A-1 took out the knife and stabbed the deceased indiscriminately on the chest, hip, etc. During the process, A-1 asked P.W.1 to gag his mouth. Accordingly, P.W.1 gagged the mouth of the deceased. A-2 received the knife from A-1 and stabbed on the other parts of the body. After noticing the deceased died, the dead body was removed from the auto and thrown in the vacant place nearby. (F) After the incident was over, all the three people came to back to Coimbatore and stopped near a public pipe. They washed the auto and their hands. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 got down at a particular place. At that time, P.W.1 was threatened by A-1 and A-2 not to reveal this incident to any person. (G) During that night, P.W.1 was not able to get sleep due to mental stress. Next day morning, P.W.1 went to the workshop where in P.W.2 mechanic was working and left the auto there for effecting repairs and then, he left the place stating that he was going for his native place. (H) After 15 days, P.W.1 came to know that the police was searching for him. Therefore, he wanted to confess everything to the authority concerned by taking the help of somebody else. P.W.20 Sunil. who happens to be his friend and a resident of Coimbatore, was prepared to help him. So, with the help of P.W.20, the accused/ P.W.1 surrendered to the police, who arrested him and recovered the auto and blood stained shirt. Thereafter, he was ready to give confession to the Magistrate. P.W.20 Sunil. who happens to be his friend and a resident of Coimbatore, was prepared to help him. So, with the help of P.W.20, the accused/ P.W.1 surrendered to the police, who arrested him and recovered the auto and blood stained shirt. Thereafter, he was ready to give confession to the Magistrate. Accordingly, he gave the confession statement. 14. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision quoted above, the reliability can be found out in two ways. His evidence may be cogent and consistent and his evidence in material particular as might have been corroborated by the other materials. As held by the Supreme Court, it is not two watertight compartments. In our view, both the tests are interlinked. Therefore, in order to find out whether P.W.1 is a reliable witness or not, we could see the other corroborative materials available on record. 15. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant as that the statement of the approver is not corroborated by the other evidence and also his deposition is contradictory to the statement made under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. 16. This contention, in our view, may not be tenable, it is true that he did not refer about P.W.17 It is also equally true that he did not refer about P.W.20 in his statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. But, it does not mean that the entire statement given under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. is quite contradictory to the deposition made before the Court. In regard to the main incident, P.W.1 is cogent and consistent giving the details of the series of the acts leading to the murder. On going through the Ex.P-5 statement under Sec. 164, Crl.P.C. and deposition, it is manifest that P.W.1 has given lot of details which are within his special knowledge. Furthermore, those details have been corroborated by the other independent materials. Under those circumstances, there is no reason to hold that P.W.1 is an unreliable witness. On the other hand, in addition to P.W.1’s evidence, by way of supporting his statement there are number of independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. 17. The motive for the occurrence is the incident which took place at 2.00 p.m., In Ex.P-5 the statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C., P.W.1 would specifically refer about P.W.11 Rahamathullah. As a matter of fact, he did not refer about other witnesses. 17. The motive for the occurrence is the incident which took place at 2.00 p.m., In Ex.P-5 the statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C., P.W.1 would specifically refer about P.W.11 Rahamathullah. As a matter of fact, he did not refer about other witnesses. On the other hand, Rahamathullah, who had been examined as P.W.11 would clearly state that P.W.1 was threatened by the deceased with knife and P.W.11 and others pacified him and asked him to go away. According to the prosecution this is the motive for the occurrence. 18. As a matter of fact, P.W.10 Kareem alias Babuji, who was also one of the persons who pacified the deceased, would refer about his presence of P.W.11 also. The other witnesses, namely, P.W.7 Mohammed and P.W.9 Hussain also would state that they were witnessing the incident which took place at 2.00 p.m. So., the first incident which is the motive for the murder, has been clearly corroborated by these witnesses. 19. At about 8.00 p.m., P.W.1 along with A-1 and A-2 went to Viji Wines and consumed Brandy. In the mean time, A-2 questioned P.W.1 as to why he had no retaliated the deceased by attacking him. But, on going through the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that he was not in the habit of rehabilitating the attack, on the other hand, used to run away from the place and as such, he was a man who is afraid of the act of Rowdism. So, in this situation, A-1 and A-2 took P.W.1 to the Wine Shop and all of them consumed Brandy. This is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.15 Ganesh, Cashier in Viji Wines, who speaks about the presence of A-1 and A-2 with P.W.1 and the consumption of Brandy in their shop. 20. The next aspect of the evidence would relate to the abduction of the deceased at about 9.00 p.m. It is true that the witnesses P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.12 who were asked to speak about the abduction, all become hostile, since they did support the prosecution in respect of this evidence. The only evidence available with regard to the abduction is the evidence of P.W.1. According to him, the deceased was taken to the Geeth Wines Shop and all the four consumed Brandy in the said shop, wherein P.W.16 Subramani was working as a Salesman. The only evidence available with regard to the abduction is the evidence of P.W.1. According to him, the deceased was taken to the Geeth Wines Shop and all the four consumed Brandy in the said shop, wherein P.W.16 Subramani was working as a Salesman. According to P.W.16, at about 10.00 p.m., all the four came and consumed Brandy. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to indicate that his evidence as against the accused with regard to last seen of the deceased alive in the company of the accused is a false one or he has adduced any false evidence as against the accused, nor to indicate that he was very close to P.W.1 or to the police. Therefore, even though there is no corroboration for P.W.1’s evidence with regard to abduction, it is clear that prior to the occurrence and at or about the time of occurrence, all the four were seen together by P.W.16. 21. In regard to the main occurrence, there is evidence of P.W.1 alone. According to P.W.1, the deceased was murdered inside the auto and after his death, the body was removed from the auto and thrown in the vacant space. Though there is no direct evidence corroborating this portion of the evidence, the evidence of P.W.2 V.A.O. would make it clear that the dead body of the deceased was found lying in that place and on the basis of that, he gave a report to P.W.25 Sub Inspector of Police. Furthermore, P.W.4 and P.W.6 the father and father-in-law of the deceased came and identified the body as that of the deceased. 22. When the further investigation was taken up by the P.W.27 Inspector of Police, he got the news at A-2 surrendered before the Court on 7.2.1992. In the meantime, the persons in the auto stand namely, P.W.7, P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.11 were interrogated by the Inspector of Police. At that time, he came to know about the quarrel which took place at 2.00 p.m. So, the police entertained suspicion on P.W.1 and the accused 1 and 2. When they were trying to search for these persons, A-1 himself with the help of P.W.24 Ravi along with Chandrasekar surrendered before P.W.27, the Inspector of Police. After arrest, in pursuance of his confession, the knife and blood stained shirt were recovered. 23. When they were trying to search for these persons, A-1 himself with the help of P.W.24 Ravi along with Chandrasekar surrendered before P.W.27, the Inspector of Police. After arrest, in pursuance of his confession, the knife and blood stained shirt were recovered. 23. In this context, it is to be noticed that though the blood was found on the knife, the group was not detected. Furthermore, much importance cannot be given with reference to this recovery, since according to P.W.1, the accused 1 and 2 and P.W.1 after murdering the deceased came to the public pipe and washed the auto and the knife on 11.2.1992. But, the shirt which was recovered on the confession of A-1 was stained with human blood. In our view, it lends some assurance with reference to the part played by the accused. 24. On knowing the surrendering of A-2, P.W.27 Inspector of Police filed an application for getting police custody for A-2 before the Magistrate. Accordingly, on 13.2.1992 the custody was granted. On 14.2.1992, on his confession, M.O.10 Watch was recovered from P.W.19 Babu. As far as this part of the evidence is concerned, we need not give much importance because there is no reference about the removal of the watch from the deceased in the deposition of P.W.1. There is no reference in Ex.P.5, the statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. also. According to P.W.19, the Watch was pledged to him by A-2. When P.W.19 himself would admit that he would not be able to see the time of the Watch, there is no reason as to why he got M.O.10 watch by way of pledge. But however, the recovery of Watch has been projected by prosecution in order to show that watch contains some blood stain. The witness P.W.6, father in law and the wife of the deceased identified the watch as the same was worn by the deceased. However, since this would not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 in any way, we need not give much importance to this recovery. 25. The next aspect of the evidence is arrest and recovery of the articles from P.W.1. As indicated above, P.W.1 approached P.W.20 Sunil for surrendering to the police. P.W.20 and his friend Baby arranged for the surrendering of P.W.1 before P.W.27, the Inspector of Police. 25. The next aspect of the evidence is arrest and recovery of the articles from P.W.1. As indicated above, P.W.1 approached P.W.20 Sunil for surrendering to the police. P.W.20 and his friend Baby arranged for the surrendering of P.W.1 before P.W.27, the Inspector of Police. After recording confession, P.W.27 went to P.W.21’s workshop as pointed out by P.W.1 and recovered the auto M.O.1 and Khaki Shirt of P.W.1 M.O.2 which was kept in the rear seat of the auto. This evidence, in our view, is quite relevant and important. 26. According to P.W.21, the auto was left in the early morning of 23.2.1992 in his workshop and he was informed that P.W.1 was leaving for his native place in Kerala. Furthermore, group of the blood stain in the M.O.2 Khaki Shirt of P.W.1 tallies with the blood of the deceased Under those circumstances, this evidence assumes significance which is an important corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. 27. Apart from this evidence, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.20 Sunil who speaks about the extra-judicial confession made to him by P.W.1. As correctly, pointed out by Mr.Sudanthiram, this extra-judicial confession said to have been made by P.W.1 cannot be given importance, in view of the fact that the same cannot be used as against the other accused. 28. Sec.30 of the Evidence Act would not apply to this case, since P.W.1 was not jointly tried along with the other accused. But however, the evidence of P.W.20 with reference to the statement made by P.W.1 to him cannot be rejected in toto, in view of the fact that only on the basis of that statement, P.W.20 took P.W.1 to the Police Station and produced him before P.W.27, the Inspector of Police. So, to that extent, the statement given by P.W.1 to P.W.20 can be accepted. 29. It is further contended by Mr.Sudanthiram that the evidence of P.W.1 and his statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. made before the Magistrate cannot at all be accepted, since the said statement does not indicate that P.W.1 give self-inculpatory statement. According to the counsel, the reading of the evidence and his statement would show that he did not take active part in the crime. 30. This contention, in our view, may not be accepted. According to the counsel, the reading of the evidence and his statement would show that he did not take active part in the crime. 30. This contention, in our view, may not be accepted. According to the prosecution, all the three abducted the deceased and all the four persons consumed Brandy in the shop wherein P.W.16 was working and thereafter, the deceased was stabbed inside the auto. As a matter of fact, while stabbing the deceased, A-1 asked P.W.1 to gag his mouth in order to prevent him from shouting or creating sound and accordingly, P.W.1 gagged his mouth and thereafter, A-2 received the knife from A-1 and he also stabbed him indiscriminately on various parts of the body. After this incident was over, P.W.1 joined with the others, took the body and threw it in the vacant space. This shows that P.W.1 also took part in the commission of crime. Under those circumstances, the statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. and deposition given by P.W.1 cannot be considered to be exculpatory statement. 31. It is also contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by the medical evidence adduced by P.W.3 Doctor. It is pointed out that according to P.W.1, A-2 caused injury on the back of the deceased. But, there is no injury on the back. However, the reading of the evidence of P.W.1 would be make it obvious that the did not say that actually the injury was a inflicted on the back. He simply stated: The post-mortem certificate would show that the injuries were inflicted on the shoulder and thigh. 32. When a person was being stabbed, it cannot be said that he would keep his body in a particular position. The normal tendency of the man when he is stabbed is that he would invariably resist the attack. So in that process, the stabs would have been fell on the shoulder and thigh. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the ocular testimony is completely contradictory to the medical testimony. 33. It is further contended that the recovery of the knife and other articles was a belated one and so, the evidence relating to the recovery may not be relied upon. In order to substantiate this plea, several judgments were cited. 34. It is true that the occurrence took place on 22.1.1992 and the recovery was made on 11.2.1992, 14.2.1992 and 16.2.1992. In order to substantiate this plea, several judgments were cited. 34. It is true that the occurrence took place on 22.1.1992 and the recovery was made on 11.2.1992, 14.2.1992 and 16.2.1992. Mere delay in the recovery would not in our view, be a ground to reject the entire prosecution story. This is a case where the first accused was arrested on 11.2.1992 and on the very same day, the knife and blood stained clothes were recovered. A-2 was arrested on 14.2.1992 and on the very same day, the Watch was recovered from P.W.19. Similarly, P.W.1 was arrested on 16.2.1992 and on the very same day, the blood stained clothe was recovered. So, immediately after the arrest, the articles involved in this case were recovered then and there. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a belated recovery. 35. In the light of the discussion made above, it can be safely held that P.W.1 is a reliable witness and his evidence can be acted upon, especially in view of the fact that the testimony has been corroborated by the other evidence of several independent witnesses in material particulars. 36. In the above fact situation, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against both the appellants and the judgment rendered by the trial Court is correct. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are liable to be confirmed and accordingly, the same are confirmed. Thus, the appeals are dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellants to undergo the remaining period of sentence.