USHA MEHRA ( 1 ) APPELLANTS were charged under Section 302/394/411/34 Indian Penal Code (in short- IPC) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after considering the oral and the documentary evidence convicted these appellants under Section 302/394/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 ipc and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000. 00 each and in default imprisonment for two months and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 394 ipc and fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 each In default payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences ware to run concurrently. The orders of conviction and sentence have been assailed by the appellants, in tar alia, on the grounds that identity of the appellants were doubtful. Moreover on the basis of the disclosure statements the alleged recovered articles were never got identified. The alleged recovery was also not witnessed by an independent witness. Thus recovery having not been proved validly the accused could not be connected with the crime. Test Identification Parade of the appellants was not conducted- Prosecution introduced Rakhee (Public Witness-1) about whom nothing was said by Mangal Singh at the time of recording the FIR. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Rakhee (Public Witness-1) and for that matter on the testimony of Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2 ). ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge raised in this appeal, we may have quick glance to the facts of the case. Prosecution s case was unfolded by Mangal singh (Public Witness-2) son of Nathu Singh. He was the tenant in the premises bearing No. B-392, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. The said premises was owned by deceased Raju s parents. Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) was running a juice shop at Chowk of sector-14. On 29/08/1991 when ha came back from his village Harila at about 12-15 PM he saw that the entrance door of the house was bolted from inside. He knocked at the door. It was opened by accused Munwar whom he knew from before. After opening the door Munwar went straight towards tha room of the landlord. Mangal singh questioned him as to what he was doing there. To this accused Munwar replied that he had come on the invitation of the landlord s son Raju. He knocked at the door. It was opened by accused Munwar whom he knew from before. After opening the door Munwar went straight towards tha room of the landlord. Mangal singh questioned him as to what he was doing there. To this accused Munwar replied that he had come on the invitation of the landlord s son Raju. After saying so he went towards landlord s room and tried to close the door of that room. There was another boy standing near the door of landlord s room. That boy was about 18-19 years of age, fair complexion, height 5 3". He was wearing pink colour Banyan like shirt. Mangal Singh was able to identify him- Munwar and that boy closed the door of landlord s room. On this Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) got suspicious, he therefore went towards that room and peeped inside. He saw Raju son of the landlord lying dead on the cot and two trunks in that room were lying opened and articles lying scattered. Mangal Singh tried to catch hold of Munwar but he pushed Mangal Singh aside and ran outside the house. Meanwhile the other boy also ran out. Mangal Singh tried to chase him as well but could not catch hold of that boy. Mangal Singh went to the Sarpanch, Mr. Rameshwar Dass (Public Witness-9) of the market and narrated these facts. On hearing this, Rohtas who was also present there conveyed this information to the police. On the basis of the information fed by Mangal singh, Rukka was prepared and the FIR was registered. ( 3 ) SMT. SHEELA (Public Witness-5) landlady and mother of the deceased furnished the details of the articles/ornaments and cash stolen from her house. Mukram was arrested from chilla Jhar on 6/9/1991. On his disclosure statement part of the stolen property was recovered. Appellant No. 2 Munwar himself surrendered before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 5/9/1991. Munwar also made a disclosure statement and got recovered part of stolen property. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined number of witnesses but for our purpose and for determination of this appeal statement of Rakhee (Public Witness-1), Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2), Rajender (Public Witness-3), Sheela (Public Witness-5), Dr. L. K. Baruah (Public Witness-7), Rameshwar dass (Public Witness-9) beside the statement of Investigating Officer are relevant. ( 5 ) MANGAL Singh (Public Witness-2) is the author of the FIR. L. K. Baruah (Public Witness-7), Rameshwar dass (Public Witness-9) beside the statement of Investigating Officer are relevant. ( 5 ) MANGAL Singh (Public Witness-2) is the author of the FIR. He was the tenant of Smt. Sheela (Public Witness-5) mother of the deceased Raju. Mangal Singh was known to Munwar from before. As per Mangal Singh he knew both the accused persons because they had been coming to his shop for taking juice. He reiterated his statement made to police and supported the case of the prosecution in totality. Ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma counsel for the appellants tried to point out discrepancies in his statement made to the police and the one recorded in the Court. According to her in his statement to police he did not give the name of the second accused Mukram i. e. appellant No. 1 rather reading of that statement makes it clear that he was not aware of the name of second accused. That is why ha could only give his description instead of giving his name. Had he known accused Mukram from before he would not have said that he could identify that boy when produced before him. He should have given his name. However in his statement made in Court he contradicted himself by saying that he knew both the accused persons as they were his customers. We find no material contradiction nor any force in this submission because the statement made in Court does not show that Mangal singh had on material points contradicted himself. He said he could identify the second boy. He said it because he had seen that boy from before, and that is what precisely he said in Court. Thus there was no material contradiction in the statement of Mangal Singh so as to nullify the evidentiary value of his testimony. In fact, his statement not only appears to be natural, trustworthy and inspire confidence but also stood corroborated from other material available on record beside the statement of Rakhee (Public Witness-1 ). Mangal singh (Public Witness-2) said that the entrance gate was bolted from inside. When the door was knocked by him, it was opened by accused Munwar. Conduct of Munwar made him suspicious hence he peeped inside the room and saw Raju son of landlord lying dead on the cot. On this material aspect there is no contradiction in his testimony. Mangal singh (Public Witness-2) said that the entrance gate was bolted from inside. When the door was knocked by him, it was opened by accused Munwar. Conduct of Munwar made him suspicious hence he peeped inside the room and saw Raju son of landlord lying dead on the cot. On this material aspect there is no contradiction in his testimony. In fact his statement which implicated the accused persons remained unassailed on record. His statement that he came home at 12. 15 PM. knocked the main door which was bolted from inside and that door being opened by Munwar and his finding Raju dead lying on the cot and that Munwar and mukram ran out from the spot. His statement on these material aspects linking the accused persons with crime remained unrebutted and uncontroverted on record. This part of his statement was not subjected to cross-examination, rather in the cross-examination he reiterated that Munwar ran first and Mukram followed him. This in short was what he told the police as well as in the Court. He reiterated that he tried to chase them but could not apprehend them. Hence we find no material contradiction in the testimony of Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2 ). His statement inspires confidence and appears to be truthful. ( 6 ) MS. MEENA Chaudhary Sharma made effort to bring out another contradiction in the testimony of Mangal singh (Public Witness-2) when he said in his cross-examination that he knew both the accused persons by face and not by name to police he gave the name of Munwar, this according to ms. Sharma shows that FIR was ante-dated. We find no substance in this contention. Mangal Singh in no uncertain words said he knew both the accused persons as they had been coming to his juice shop. Accused Munwar he knew by name i. e. what he said in his chief-examination as well as to the police at the first available opportunity. In fact, there is nothing on record where from it can be inferred that FIR was ante-dated. In the Rukka, name of Munwar was given. Mangal Singh s statement was recorded in court after a considerable lapse of time. This shows there was no question of police ante-dating the FIR which was recorded on the basis of Mangal Singh s statement. In the Rukka, name of Munwar was given. Mangal Singh s statement was recorded in court after a considerable lapse of time. This shows there was no question of police ante-dating the FIR which was recorded on the basis of Mangal Singh s statement. The testimony of Mangal Singh is not only corroborated by Rakhee (Public Witness-1) but by Rameshwar Dass (Public Witness-9) also. Rameshwar Dass (Public Witness-9) was the Sarpanch of the market. He supported Mangal singh (Public Witness-2) by saying that on 29/08/1991 while he was sitting at his shop, Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) came there at about 12. 30 PM or 12. 35 PM. Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) told him that the son of his landlord had been murdered by munwar. Rohtas who was sitting at his shop on hearing this he informed the police on telephone about this incident. To Rameshwar Dass (Public Witness-9) not even a suggestion was given that what he stated was not correct or that mangal Singh never informed him about any such occurrence. In fact his testimony remained unrebutted and uncontroverted on record. Beside Mangal Singh s testimony being corroborated by Rameshwar Dass (Public Witness-9) it also stood strengthened from the statement of Rajender (Public Witness-3) son of the landlord and brother of the deceased. Rajender (Public Witness-3) said that he had seen at about 10. 00 AM both accused persons in the vicinity near his house on the date of occurrence. This part of Rajender s (Public Witness-3) statement was not challenged. Their presence near the house of the deceased at 10. 00 AM corroborates to a great extent to what was stated by Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2 ). Rajender s (Public Witness-3) statement proves the presence of these accused persons near the house of the deceased. ( 7 ) NOW turning to the evidence of Rakhee (Public Witness-1), ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma s assertion that since Rakhee s name was not mentioned by Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) in the FIR nor while making statement in the court, therefore apparently Rakhee was a planted witness. She was introduced by the prosecution subsequently. ( 7 ) NOW turning to the evidence of Rakhee (Public Witness-1), ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma s assertion that since Rakhee s name was not mentioned by Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) in the FIR nor while making statement in the court, therefore apparently Rakhee was a planted witness. She was introduced by the prosecution subsequently. This contention merits rejection in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar and Subhash Chandra Rai and Another vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (part 31) AIR SCW 2833 wherein their Lordships observed that evidence of a witness does not lose credibility because his or her name was not mentioned in the FIR. In the said judgment it was held as under:- held - Testimony of eye witness which is consistent and convincing - Cannot be rejected or mere existence of enmity. It was further held that: it cannot be said that because the names of some eye witnesses are not mentioned in the fir no reliance can be placed on their testimony. The purpose of the FIR is to set the criminal law into motion which does not require the details or the names of all the witnesses who have seen the occurrence. ( 8 ) IN fact Rakhee appears to be a natural witness. She cannot be called a planted witness, in the facts of this case. She being sister of the deceased was resident of that house. She had gone to attend her school. Her school hours were from 8. 30 AM to 12. 00 noon. Her school was at a short distance. So naturally after finishing school at 12. 00 noon she was coming back home. When she reached near her house she saw both these accused persons running out from her house. They were chased by Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2 ). She knew them because they had come to her house along with her brothers. Mangal singh (Public Witness-2) while chasing might not have noticed her, but the fact remains that she being resident of that house after finishing school was coming back when she saw accused persons running and that is what she stated. Therefore it cannot be said that she was a planted witness. She appears to be natural witness. Her testimony inspires confidence and appears to be truthful. Therefore it cannot be said that she was a planted witness. She appears to be natural witness. Her testimony inspires confidence and appears to be truthful. She knew the accused persons from before because they visited her house had been corroborated and confirmed by rajender (Public Witness-3) when he stated that accused persons were known to him from before as they had bean coining to his house. No interest or motive has been pointed out on account of which Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) could falsely implicate these accused persons. No previous rivalry or enmity pointed out for which it can be said that these witnesses with a malafide intention tried to implicate the accused persons. Not even a suggestion was given to rakhee (Public Witness-1), Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) and Rajender (Public Witness-3) that these accused persons deliberately named them for any purpose, motive or interest. Accused Mukram tried to build motive for Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) and Rajender (Public Witness-3) for falsely implicating him. In his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code for the first time he said that rajender (Public Witness-3) was employed by him. Rajender had taken loan to the tune of Rs. 20,000. 00 from him for the long drawn treatment of his younger brother Raju. Similarly mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) had taken Rs. 2000. 00 from him at the time of installation of his Kolhu of juice. When he demanded back his money they falsely implicated him. This defence deserve rejection for the reason this was not put to either Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) nor to rajender (Public Witness-3) when they stepped into witness box. This appears to be after thought defence. However, this supports the evidence of Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) and of rajender (Public Witness-3) that they knew the accused persons from before. The motive to falsely implicate has not been proved. ( 9 ) BESIDE the oral evidence implicating these appellants, prosecution proved their complicity with the crime on the basis of case property i. e. ornaments of landlady (Public Witness-5) recovered at their instance on the disclosure statement of the accused mukram, one pair of silver Pajeb, two silver rings were recovered. Similarly on the disclosure statement of munwar one gold ring and one silver Pajeb were recovered. Ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma contended that these articles were of a very meagre value. Similarly on the disclosure statement of munwar one gold ring and one silver Pajeb were recovered. Ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma contended that these articles were of a very meagre value. For such meagre value ornaments accused persons could not have killed the deceased. Moreover, it cannot be expected that accused person would keep the ornaments in their possession for days together to enable the police to recover it. He would not wear one and keep the other in his pocket till such time he was arrested- This shows alleged recovery was planted on him. Similarly, Munwar who had surrendered in Court could not have carried gold ring and silver Pajeb with him. If these were stolen property he would have hidden those somewhere and not carried these ornaments with him. This shows alleged recovery of ornaments on the stated disclosure of the accused persons was not genuine. Moreover, no identification of the ornament was got done. This argument at the first flash may appear convincing but if go through the record then such an argument deserve rejection. For the reason that even if the ornaments were of a meagre value it does not in any way alter the fact that these were stolen from the house of Sheela (Public Witness-5 ). Secondly merely because Munwar himself surrendered in Court would not make his disclosure statement doubtful nor recovery of these ornaments at their instance false. He had not carried all ornaments with him. He had stated that he had concealed some of the stolen ornaments at his residence at New Ashok Nagar. Ex. Public Witness15/a was recovered at his instance from the place pointed out by him. Therefore his surrender in court could not make the disclosure statement and recovery either illegal or false. As regard the Test Identification of these ornaments. Sheela (Public Witness-5) and Rajender (Public Witness-3) identified the same. Smt. Sheela (Public Witness-5) had given details of the goods stolen to the police. As per her statement articles stolen from her boxes were one gold ring, three silver rings, six hair clips, one silver key ring, one gold chain, two Kundals of gold, two Taviz made of gold, three pairs of silver karas meant for children, two silver Tagries meant for children, three pairs of Pajeb of silveriand Rs. 10,000. 00 in cash. She identified the gold ring. Ex. PI, silver pajeb Ex. P2, silver rings Ex. 10,000. 00 in cash. She identified the gold ring. Ex. PI, silver pajeb Ex. P2, silver rings Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 and Pajeb ex. P5/i and and Ex. P5/2. Beside two rings, two chhallas and one hair pin in the form of chain all made of silver and a Bichhua were also identified by her to be stolen property. Ring Ex. P4 she said belonged to her brother-in-law Ramesh. She identified these ornaments recovered at the instance of the accused persons. Neither Rajender (Public Witness-3) nor Smt. Sheela (Public Witness-5) were subjected to any cross examination on the question of identification of these ornaments. Her statement on this count remained unrebutted on record. Apex Court in the case of Gade Lakshmi Mangraju alias Ramesh Vs. State of andhra Pradesh observed that when it comes to identification of the ornaments of the deceased, her female kin would be in a better position to identify the jewellery or ornaments worn by the deceased. In the case in hand ornaments in question were identified by Sheela herself belonging to her for which she had given the description to the police. She was in a batter position to identify her jewellery coupled with the fact that on the question of these ornaments she was not subjected to any cross-examination. Therefore, we see no reason why her statement that these ornaments belonged to her be not accepted. Her statement appears to be truthful. She did not try to exaggerate either the number of ornaments stolen or their value. She stood by her statement that is why she could not be dislodged in cross-examination. ( 10 ) MS. MEENA Chaudhary Sharma then contended that no one had seen Raju the deceased being strangulated by accused persons nor motive to kill him has been proved. No doubt Raju being strangulated had not been witnessed by any one but the following circumstances clearly proves the guilt of the accused persons:- 1. Raju, deceased, a 13 years old boy was alone at home. He could not have strangulated himself. 2. The entrance gate of the premises in question was bolted from inside. When it was knocked by Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) the door was opened from inside by accused Munwar. 3. After opening the door, Munwar went towards the room where the dead body of Raju was lying. Mukram was standing near that room. 4. 2. The entrance gate of the premises in question was bolted from inside. When it was knocked by Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) the door was opened from inside by accused Munwar. 3. After opening the door, Munwar went towards the room where the dead body of Raju was lying. Mukram was standing near that room. 4. Ornaments and cash were stolen from two boxes of Sheela which were lying scattered in the room where Raju was found lying dead. These stolen ornament s were recovered at the instance of accused persons - 5. Accused persons were seen running out from her house by Rakhee (Public Witness-1 ). She also saw Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) chasing them. 6. They were also spotted near the house of the deceased at 10. 00 A. M. by Rajender (Public Witness-3 ). ( 11 ) THE cumulative effect of these circumstances show the guilt of the accused persons. This shows that they were the only persons inside the house where dead body of Raju was found. Otherwise why would they bolt the main door of the premises in question from inside. This shows that they were involved in murder of Raju. ( 12 ) THE motive to commit crime is obvious that is stealing the goods from the house of Sheela, the landlady. Beside the ornaments they had also stolen rs. 10,000. 00 in cash. In view of the testimony of Smt. Sheela (Public Witness-5) ( 13 ) COUPLED with the circumstances enumerated above clearly points towards the guilt of the accused persons and the motive also stands proved i. e. committing theft in the house of the deceased. Boxes of Sheela (Public Witness-5) were found open and articles were lying scattered in the room. Motive to commit theft was there, therefore Raju had to be eliminated. He was alone at home, hence it was necessary to remove him in order to commit the theft. ( 14 ) DECEASED Raju was strangulated to death as is apparent from Post-mortem report. Dr. Baruah (Public Witness-7) testified that on the internal and external examination of the deceased he came to know that the linear crescentic marks resemble nail marks and those were ante-mortem, though in his opinion death was due to asphyxia following manual strangulation. That Raju was manually strangulated to death, it was not possible for the deceased to strangulate himself. Dr. Baruah (Public Witness-7) testified that on the internal and external examination of the deceased he came to know that the linear crescentic marks resemble nail marks and those were ante-mortem, though in his opinion death was due to asphyxia following manual strangulation. That Raju was manually strangulated to death, it was not possible for the deceased to strangulate himself. The nail marks show that there was a struggle before the unfortunate raju a 13 years boy could be strangulated. Unfortunately no finger prints could be found on the neck of the deceased but that does not change the fact that deceased was done to death by manually strangulating him. The presence of the accused persons inside the house and recovery of stolen property from them establishes beyond doubt the guilt of the accused persons. It connect them with crime. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated above we find no merits in the appeal nor any ground to interfere with the impugned order of conviction and sentence. Appeal is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. Order be conveyed to appellants through the superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.