Usha Mehra ( 1 ) RAKESH Patel @ Pappi, appellant in this appeal, Chander Prakash @ Chander, appellant in Cri. A. No. 172/95 and Anil Kumar appellant in Cri. A. No. 186/95 have assailed the order of conviction and sentence dated 28/07/1995 passed by learned addl. Sessions Judge thereby imposing rigorous imprisonment For life to them and a fine of Rs. 75. 000. 00 on appellant Rakesh Patel, Rs. 15,000. 00 on Chander Prakash and rs. 10,000. 00 on Anil Kumar. In default of payment of fine-they have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 302 read with Section 120-BIndian Penal Code. Since these appeals have arisen from a common judgment based on same facts hence these appeals were heard together and are going to be disposed of by common order. ( 2 ) THE conviction and sentence has been assailed by the appellants on the ground that: (1) Mere last seen circumstances is no ground to presume that the deceased was killed by the appellants; (2) Extra judicial confession by one accused could not be used against the other co-accused; (3) Recovery of alleged dagger doubtful; (4) Iden- tify of the accused not disclosed by the author of the FIR (5) Name of Pappi was given without disclosing the identify of the said Pappi; (6) There had been material con- tradictions in the statements of witnesses; (7) Author of FIR i. e. father of the deceased chunni Lalpublic Witness 7 has not supported the case of the prosecution; (8) That the seals "is" and "ch" did not belong to the investigating team hence sealing of articles doubtful. It has not been explained where from these seals came; (9) There was violation of Police rules and lastly (10) In this case Investigating Officer concealed true facts. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge we must acquaint ourselves with the facts of the case. Pacts as put up by the prosecution are that on 27/12/1990, ac- cused Rakesh Patel @ Pappi enquired from Master Lalitpublic Witness9 younger brother of the deceased the name of his sister as well as their Jhuggi number. This fact in turn was told by Master Lalitpublic Witness 9 to his mother Smt. Santoshpublic Witness2. Smt. Santosh did not like this enquiry made by accused Rakesh Patel @ Pappi. This fact in turn was told by Master Lalitpublic Witness 9 to his mother Smt. Santoshpublic Witness2. Smt. Santosh did not like this enquiry made by accused Rakesh Patel @ Pappi. She, therefore, went to Pappi s house to find out the reason for such an enquiry. When Smt. Santoshpublic Witness2 questioned accused Pappi on this aspect, he felt offended. He used harsh language, against her. After having come back, Smt. Santoshpublic Witness2 told her son Raju the deceased as to what transpired at the house of accused Pappi. At about 6. 00 P. M. Raju the deceased went to the house of accused Pappi. There hot words were exchanged between deceased raju and accused papper Deceased Raju slapped accused Pappi. That on the interven- tion of Mr. Chunni Lalpublic Witness7 father of deceased matter was sorted out. On the follow- ing day i. e. 29/12/1990 when Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7), Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2), raju (deceased) and Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) were present at home, Chander Prakash ac- cused came to call deceased Raju at deceased s house. Raju the deceased went with accused Chander Prakash. Because of previous days incident Smt Santoshpublic Witness2 asked her husbandpublic Witness7 and her brotherpublic Witness6 to follow Raju the deceased. She knew that chander Prakash was friend of accused Pappi, hence she suspected that something may not happen to Raju, play. Accordingly, Chunni Lal (PW 7) (father of the deceased) and Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) (uncle of deceased) went after Raju. As soon as they reached on the main road at Lakhi Park they saw accused Chander Prakash and accused Rakesh Patel @ Pappi fighting with deceased Raju. Rakesh Patel @ Pappi shouted to accused Chander Prakash to catch hold of Raju (the deceased) and told that deceased Raju be not permitted to escape. They heard accused Pappi saying "pakar SAALE KO AAJ ISKO THAPPAR MARNE KA MAJA CHAKHA deta HOON" (Catch hold of the bastard and I would teach him a lesson for having slapped ). That Raju should not be allowed to escape. On account of this exhortation by accused Pappi, the accused Chander Prakash caught hold of Raju. Thereon Pappi took out a knife (Chhuri) and stabbed on the neck of Raju (deceased ). He again tried to stab Raju. That Raju should not be allowed to escape. On account of this exhortation by accused Pappi, the accused Chander Prakash caught hold of Raju. Thereon Pappi took out a knife (Chhuri) and stabbed on the neck of Raju (deceased ). He again tried to stab Raju. Raju freed himself and ran towards the Jhuggi of his maternal uncle shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) which happened to be nearby. After stabbing Raju, the accused pappi and Chander Prakash ran away. This occurrence was also witnessed by Sadhu ram (Civil Procedure Code4) and some passer-by. Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6), Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7) and Sadhu ram (Civil Procedure Code4) took Raju to the clinic of Dr. G. S. Puri. Since t,he condition of Raju deteriorated because of loss of blood, they took Raju in the three-wheeler Scooter to hindu Rao Hospital were he was declared brought dead. On the basis of this state- ment of Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7) the FIR in question was registered. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined almost 28 witnesses. For the purpose of determining the appeal evidence ofashok Kumar (Civil Procedure Code1), Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2), Sh. Daya Ram (Civil Procedure Code 3),sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4), Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6), Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7), Master Lalit (Civil Procedure Code9), sh. Shamin Ahmad (Civil Procedure Code11), Dr. L. T. Ramani (Civil Procedure Code16), SI Atbir Singh (Civil Procedure Code27) and finally Insp. Chander Hass (Civil Procedure Code28) have bearing. So far aspublic Witnesss. 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15,17,18, 22, 23 and 25 are concerned they are police witnesses. Const. Ombir Singh (Civil Procedure Code24) proved the delivery of the special report to the Metropolitan Magistrate. Shri davinder Kumar (Civil Procedure Code21) proved the MLC Ex. Public Witness-21/a. Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) and chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7), maternal uncle and father of the deceased were declared hostile. Similarly, Vijay Kumar (Civil Procedure Code19) and Kewal Krishan (Civil Procedure Code20) were declared hostile. ( 5 ) SO far as Sh. Ashok Kumar (Civil Procedure Code1) is concerned he is witness to the conspiracy hatched by accused persons. He heard accused Rakesh Patel @ Pappi saying "rajesh SETHI NE BAHUT TANG KAR RAKHA HAI, AAJ USKA KAAM kar DETE HAIN. " Anil on this said "aaj USKO NIBTA DETE HAIN. " This he heard on 28/12/1990 at about 9. Ashok Kumar (Civil Procedure Code1) is concerned he is witness to the conspiracy hatched by accused persons. He heard accused Rakesh Patel @ Pappi saying "rajesh SETHI NE BAHUT TANG KAR RAKHA HAI, AAJ USKA KAAM kar DETE HAIN. " Anil on this said "aaj USKO NIBTA DETE HAIN. " This he heard on 28/12/1990 at about 9. 00 or 9. 15 P. M. Next day he learnt that Raju @ Rajesh Sethi had been murdered. He did not disclose this fact to anyone on 2 8/12/1990, because he did not realise the significance of those statements. Counsel for the appellants contended that he is a planted withness for the reason that if these utterances were made by the appellants then there would have been number of other persons who were present at the tea shop and were taking tea. Moreover, this witness is not an innocent witness. He was facing trial under Section 307indian Penal Code along with deceased Rajesh, therefore must have known the significance of the alleged ex- hortation made by accused Pappi. We find no substance in this contention of counsel for the appellants. Even if a person is facing trail it is not necessary that he could ap- preciate the implication of such a statement and the consequences thereof. Moreover, there was no occasion for him at that stage to lodge a police report because as a con- sequence of that statement nothing happened on that day. Mr. Ahluwalia counsel for the State rightly contended that he being involved in a case under Section 307 IFC may not have liked to get involved in another case, therefore, did not report the matter. We find force in this submission of Mr. Ahluwalia. Simply because he was facing trial under Section 307indian Penal Code along with deceased is no ground to discard or discredit the testimony of Ashok Kumarpublic Witness. ( 6 ) SMT. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) is the mother of deceased Rajesh Sethi alias Raju. She was informed by her son Master Lalit Kumar (Civil Procedure Code9) that Rakesh Patel @ Pappi had enquired from him about his sister and about Rajesh Sethi alias Raju as well as the number of their Jhuggi. She did not like Rakesh Patel asking the name of her daughter hence decided to lodge protest with Rakesh Patel by going to his house. This part. She did not like Rakesh Patel asking the name of her daughter hence decided to lodge protest with Rakesh Patel by going to his house. This part. of her testimony has been corroborated by Master Lalit Kumar (Civil Procedure Code9 ). He was sub- jected to cross-examination but no contradiction could be elicited nor his testimony could be discredited. It has also been proved by the testimony of Lalit Kumar (Civil Procedure Code9) as well as of Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) that when Smt. Santosh went to the house of Rakesh patel @ Pappi to protest his action, Rakesh Patel misbehaved with her. She told about the behaviour of Rakesh Patel @ Pappi to her son Rajesh @ Raju, who on hearing the same immediately went to the house of Rakesh Patel. Hot words were exchanged be- tween the deceased and the accused Pappi. Deceased Rajesh slapped Rakesh Patel. Thus from the testimony of Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) supported by the testimony of Lalit kumar (Civil Procedure Code9) motive and the cause which led to this crime stood established. Rakesh patel on being slapped by Rajesh wanted to take revenge. He, therefore, made ut- terances which were heard by Ashok Kumar (Civil Procedure Code1) and as quoted above. Smt. San- tosh (Civil Procedure Code2) further testified that on 28/12/1990 at about 9. 00 or 9. 15 P. M. Chander Prakash came to her house to call Rajesh the deceased. She apprehended danger because Chander Prakash was friend to Pappi. and deceased and Pappi had ex- changed not words the previous day. Therefore, she apprehended that some untoward thing may not happen. She accordingly asked her husband Chunni Lal (PW7) and her brother Shyam Lal (PW6) who were sitting with her to follow Rajesh. Shyam Lal (PW6) and Chunni Lal (PW7) according. to her went after Rajesh. Thereafter she heard that her son had been stabbed. She testified that the incident had ben witnessed by Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7), Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) and Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4 ). ( 7 ) SADHU Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) corroborated the case of the prosecution in all respects. He. heard Rakesh Patel @ Pappi asking accused Chander Prakash to catch hold of rajesh @ Raju so that he may not escape. ( 7 ) SADHU Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) corroborated the case of the prosecution in all respects. He. heard Rakesh Patel @ Pappi asking accused Chander Prakash to catch hold of rajesh @ Raju so that he may not escape. Chander Prakash caught hold of Raju @ rajesh Sethi and accused Rakesh Patel @ Pappi took out the knife stabbed Rajesh @ raju on the left side of his neck. When Rakesh Patel again tried to strike Rajesh got himself freed from the clutches of the accused persons and ran towards the house of his uncle Shyam Lalpublic Witness. Since Raju s condition was deteriorating hence he was taken to a nearby Private Clinic of Dr. Puri to get first aid. Thereafter on the advise of Dr. Puri Raju was taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital where he was declared brought dead. Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) was subjected to lengthy cross examination, but no material con- tradiction could be elicited. The thrust of cross-examination of Sadhu Rampublic Witness ap- pears to be that he was not residing at J- 251 or that he was not owning Jhuggi No. J-180 or that he was not resident of Delhi but was living in the village. Fact of the mat- ter is he accompanied the deceased Rajesh to Dr. Buries Clinic and from there to hindu Rao Hospital. His statement was recorded by the police at the hospital. He was party to the proceedings held thereafter at the spot. Had he not been at the spot he could not have taken the deceased to Dr. Puri s Clinic and from there to the Hindu rao Hospital. This fact which has remained unchallenged proves his presence at the spot at the time of incident. His presence at the place of occurrence has in fact been corroborated by the testimony of Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) as well as by Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code 6) who stated that when Rajesh @ Raju came to the house of Rajesh (PW6) after being slabbed,public Witness6 sent the information about Raju being stabbed to his sister Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2), mother of the deceased. On receipt of which Smt Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7) and Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) came there. They to ok Rajesh to Hindu rao Hospital. Pant (Ex. PI) and Shirt (Ex. On receipt of which Smt Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7) and Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) came there. They to ok Rajesh to Hindu rao Hospital. Pant (Ex. PI) and Shirt (Ex. P-2) of Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) were seized by the police vide Memo. Excivil Procedure Code4/a. Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) was declared hostile but in spite of that he admitted the presence of Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) there at the relevant time. Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) also admitted that blood stained clothes of Sadhu Ram which were seized by the police had the blood of the deceased. Similarly, Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7) though resiled from his earlier statement and declared hostile, did not deny the presence of Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4 ). He admitted the presence of Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) at -- the time of the incident. In his own words; "it was about 9. 00 or 9. 15 P. M. I, Sadhu Ram and may wife were present in jhuggi. "( 8 ) THIS proves that when Chander Prakash came to call deceased Rajesh, Sadhu ram was present in the Jhuggi of the deceased. Sadhu Ram s presence at the spot of incident thus legitimately be inferred because beside his oral testimony, there is tes- timony ofpublic Witness-2 to prove that Sadhu Ram was present at the spot. Coupled with oral testimony, there is documentary evidence to prove his presence and that is his blood stained clothes which had blood of the deceased on it. It was because he lifted the deceased in order to take him to Dr. Puri and thereafter to hospital hence his clothes sustained blood of the deceased. Had he not been present he would not have lifted the deceased nor his clothes had the blood of the deceased. This shows he was present at the spot. Hence the testimony of Sadhu Rampublic Witness inspires confidence. It cannot be dis- carded or brushed aside lightly. There was no motive for Sadhu Ram to falsely impli- cate Rakesh Patel or for that matter Chander Prakash. As per Chunni Lal s own showing, Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) was present in the Jhuggi when Rajesh @ Raju left. According to Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2), Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) and Master Lalit (Civil Procedure Code9 ). There was no motive for Sadhu Ram to falsely impli- cate Rakesh Patel or for that matter Chander Prakash. As per Chunni Lal s own showing, Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) was present in the Jhuggi when Rajesh @ Raju left. According to Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2), Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) and Master Lalit (Civil Procedure Code9 ). Raju left the jhuggi being called by Chander Prakash. Moreover, the presence of Sadhu Ram stand established because his name appears in the FIR and blood on his clothes was found to be of the deceased i. e. ab Group. Thus the presence of Sadhu Ram cannot be doubted. We see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4 ). He had no axe to grind. In fact Sadhu Ram gave eye-witness account of the incident. His testimony has not been shaken. Post-mortem report shows one injury and that is what has been described by Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4)also. There were, of course, some injuries also on the person of deceased Raju but. this fact does not make any suspicious in the story of the prosecution. Hence we see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Sadhu ram (PW4 ). He had no axe to grind. ( 9 ) FROM the testimony of Ashok Kumar (Civil Procedure Code1), Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) mother of the deceased, Lalit Kumar (PW9) and that of Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4) it leaves no manner of doubt that the. appellant herein conspired to kill Raju @ Rajesh Sethi. Otherwise there was no need for Chander Prakash to call Rajesh Sethi from his house at 9. 00 or 9. 15 p. M. Moreover, he facilitated Rakesh Patel to stab by catching hold of the deceased. ( 10 ) IT was then contended by counsel for the appellant that in DD N6. 17a ad- dress as given of the place of occurrence, was J-Block, Lakhi Park. With this address the IO/sho could not have gone to the house of the deceased. We find no force in this submission because in a JJ Cluster from J-Block the SHO could have got the in- formation about residential address of the deceased. . SHO s going to the house of deceased does not create any dent in the prosecution s case. We find no force in this submission because in a JJ Cluster from J-Block the SHO could have got the in- formation about residential address of the deceased. . SHO s going to the house of deceased does not create any dent in the prosecution s case. ( 11 ) AS against the testimony of eye-witness Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code4), we have got the testimony of Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) maternal, uncle of the deceased and Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code 7) father of the deceased. They both resiled froip their previous statements. Therefore, were subjected to cross-examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Shyam lal (Civil Procedure Code6) as well as Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7) admitted that Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) had lodged a complaint with the police against them for the reason that after taking bride from the accused persons they had resiled from their previous statements. Chunni Lal and shyam Lal had earlier made statements in which they implicated both the accused persons i. e Rakesh Patel @ Pappi as well as Chander Prakash @ Chander. They described the incident in the same manner as had been described by Sadhu Ram (Civil Procedure Code 4 ). But while appearing in the Court they resiled from their previous statements. Therefore, no much significance can be attached to their evidence. Chunni Lal (Civil Procedure Code7) admitted that his wife had filed a complaint against him as well as Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6) alleging that they had taken Rs. 40,000. 00 from the accused persons in order to resile from their previous statements. Hence being hostile witnesses no much reliance cap be placed on their statements. ( 12 ) RAJ Ku mar (Civil Procedure Code8) testified that Chander Prakash borrowed his scooter on 28/12/1990 at about 10. 00 P. M. on the false pretext that in some delivery case he was to take the patient to Hindu Rao Hospital. He permitted him to take his scooter that when he went to take back his scooter on 29. 12. 90 Chander Prakash was not available. Thereafter the scooter was found abandoned at Pahar Ganj. The scooter was borrowed by Chander Prakash immediately after the incident took place. Mr. Ah- luwalia contended. that scooter was borrowed in order to escape from the spot. They in fact escaped. 12. 90 Chander Prakash was not available. Thereafter the scooter was found abandoned at Pahar Ganj. The scooter was borrowed by Chander Prakash immediately after the incident took place. Mr. Ah- luwalia contended. that scooter was borrowed in order to escape from the spot. They in fact escaped. This is a corroborative circumstances and piece of evidence to point at the guilt of the accused persons. ( 13 ) MASTER Lalit (Civil Procedure Code9) was seven years old when the incident took place. He testified and described as to what happened on 27/12/1990 i. e. when ac- cused Rakesh Patel alias Pappi asked him the name of his sister, about his brother and jhuggi number. His testimony stood corroborated from the version given by his mother Smt. Santosh (Civil Procedure Code2) and which turned out to be the cause for the stabbing of rajesh Sethi @ Raju. Shanum Ahmad (Civil Procedure Code11) was the member of the investigating team. He testified that on the pointing out of Rakesh Patel police arrested accused anil and at the disclosure of Anil Kumar daggar was recovered. Disclosure statements of Anil Kumar was recorded as Ex. Public Witness-11/a. Daggar was recovered from Ganda Nul- lah near Shakti Nagar which fell on the KamlaNagar side near Shakti Nagar Chowk. Daggar was taken out by him from the rubbish and produced before the police. The said daggar was exhibited as Ex. P-3. In cross-examination by Mr, O. P. Malviya, Advo- cate he admitted that team of five police officials beside Rakesh and Anil had gone to the Ganda Nullah for the recovery of the daggar. Balbir Singh (Civil Procedure Code13) prepared the scaled site plan Ex. Public Witness-13/a. According to him the site plan was prepared at the pointing out of Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6 ). He denied the suggestion that site plan was not prepared at the instance of Shyam Lal (Civil Procedure Code6 ). Shyam Lalpublic Witness6 nowhere denied the preparation of site plan at his pointing out. ( 14 ) DR. L. T. Ramani (Civil Procedure Code16) proved his report and indicated external injuries as follows: -. External injuries :- 1. An incised wound 2 cms x 0. 5 cm x ? present transversely on the left side lateral aspect of neck 5 cms. below the ear lobule. Both the ends of the in- jury were accutly cut. 2. L. T. Ramani (Civil Procedure Code16) proved his report and indicated external injuries as follows: -. External injuries :- 1. An incised wound 2 cms x 0. 5 cm x ? present transversely on the left side lateral aspect of neck 5 cms. below the ear lobule. Both the ends of the in- jury were accutly cut. 2. Small punctured wound 3 cms. long x skin deep present just below injury no. l. 3. Small incised would 0. 5 cms x skin deep on the left side of chest wall in mid axillary line 8 cms. below the arm pit. 4. A tiny punctured would 0. 3 cms. x skin deep on the left coastral margin. 5. Small cut 0. 3 cms. long on the public region. ( 15 ) HE also indicated the internal examination and what it reveals and after dis- cussing the same he concluded as under :- "in my opinion the injuries were anti-mortem, caused by sharp edged weapon. Death was due to haemorrhagic shock consequent to injury No. 1. Time since death was about 15 hrs. Clothes and sample of blood was preserved, sealed and handed over to the police along with the sample of seal. My report is Ex. Public Witness-16/a which bears my signatures at point a he further opined that :- "on 17. 1. 1991 a sealed packet sealed with the seal of ch was produced by inspector Chander Hass along with the application Ex. Public Witness-16/8. The pack- et on opening found to contain a daggar. The blade of which was double sharp edged rusted on both sides; Some blood like reddish were seen on the blade. In my opinion the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possible with the weapon. " ( 16 ) TWO other witnesses namely Vijay Kumar (Civil Procedure Code19) in whose presence scooter parked by Chander Prakash was recovered. Kewal Krishan (Civil Procedure Code20) is that witness in whose presence Rakesh Patel @ Pappi got recovered Jersy. Both these witnesses vijay Kumar (Civil Procedure Code19) and Kewal Krishan (Civil Procedure Code20) were declared hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution. SI Atbir Singh (Civil Procedure Code27) and Inspector chander Hass (PWr28) corroborated in material particulars the investigation done by them and also that the proper procedure was followed. Both these witnesses vijay Kumar (Civil Procedure Code19) and Kewal Krishan (Civil Procedure Code20) were declared hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution. SI Atbir Singh (Civil Procedure Code27) and Inspector chander Hass (PWr28) corroborated in material particulars the investigation done by them and also that the proper procedure was followed. ( 17 ) FROM the above discussion of the evidence the only irresistible conclusion which can be arrived at is that it was Rakesh Patel @ Pappi who inflicted knife stab on the neck of the deceased which injury was sufficient to cause the death of Rajesh Sethi @ Raju. That is why chander Prakash called Rajesh Sethi @ Raju. That Chander prakash @ Chander was his accomplice and that they had common intention to get rid to Rajesh Sethi @ Raju from his house and took him where Rakesh Patel was. Chander Prakash caught hold of deceased s hand and Rakesh Patel inflicted knife blow. Hence the guilt of these two accused persons stood established beyond any reasonable doubt. Chander Prakash in order to escape and show his alibi borrowed scooter and then abandoned it at Pahar Ganj. This factor also points towards the guilt of Chander Prakash. The knife when shown to Dr. Ramani (Civil Procedure Code16), he testified that this knife could have caused injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause the death of rajesh Sethi @ Raju. ( 18 ) SO far as Anil is concerned except the testimony of Daya Ram (Civil Procedure Code3) who stated that Anil confessed on 29. 12. 1990 that Pappi had stabbed Raju and that Rakesh patel and Chander Prakash had conspired for the murder of Raju, there is nothing on record to link Anil with thecrime in question. As per the testimony of Shamim Ahmad (Civil Procedure Code11) the dagger was recovered at the disclosure statement of Anil Kumar. The said disclosure statement has been denied by independent witness. Hence it cannot be relied upon. We find that there is no evidence linking Anil Kumar with the crime in question. Even at the time of recovery of knife Rakesh Patel @ Pappi was with the police team as stated by Shamim Ahmad (Civil Procedure Code11 ). He and Anil took them to Ganda nullah and got the dagger recovered. Hence it cannot be relied upon. We find that there is no evidence linking Anil Kumar with the crime in question. Even at the time of recovery of knife Rakesh Patel @ Pappi was with the police team as stated by Shamim Ahmad (Civil Procedure Code11 ). He and Anil took them to Ganda nullah and got the dagger recovered. Even if for the sake of argument disclosure statement is to be relied upon even then it does not link Anil with murder of Rajesh sethi. Anil Kumar might have been in the know of as to where these accused persons had hidden the knife that by itself does not prove that Anil committed murder or in any way abetted it. Prosecution has not assigned any role to Anil nor linked him with the crime except for the alleged recovery of the dagger. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, taking the above factors into consideration so far as appellant Anil is concerned his appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence passed against anil Kumar is accordingly set aside. So far as conviction and sentence of accused rakesh Patel @ Pappi and Chander Prakash @ Chander is concerned we find no in- firmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The same is accordingly maintained. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above the appeals filed by Rakesh Patel @ Pappi bearing no. 140/95 and of Chander Prakash @ chander bearing No. 172/95 are hereby dismissed.