ORDER 1. The appellants in these three criminal appeals, and one Mohan Ram, the absconding accused and three others were charged for offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B, 394, 414 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998. Since accused Mohan Ram was absconding, g his case was separated from the rest of the accused persons and after trial the learned Sessions Judge found the appellants herein, Kailash and Koja Ram guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 394, 201 IPCand appellant Pukh Raj guilty of offence punishable under Section 414 IPC. He acquitted accused Naina Ram, Dhanraj and Poonam Chand of the offence charged against them. The learned Sessions Judge awarded life imprisonment to appellants Kailash and Koja Ram while he awarded a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine to appellant Pukh Raj. 2. The three appellants herein preferred separate appeals before the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The High Court by its judgment dated 24-8-2001 dismissed the said appeals. Consequently, the appellants are now before us in these appeals. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the three appellants herein along with the absconding accused conspired to 'steal the taxi belonging to one Prema Ram Bishnoi. With the said intention, they engaged his taxi on the pretext of proceeding to Borunda. The said taxi was engaged from the bus-stand at Riktiya Bhairuji Choraya on 21-11-1996. It is the case of the prosecution that en route the appellants with the other accused committed the murder of Prema Ram Bishnoi and disposed of his body. It is the further case of the prosecution that they having taken the taxi to a garage with the help of the appellant Pukh Raj herein and the other acquitted accused persons removed the parts of the same and thereafter abandoned the taxi Jeep) on the bed of Luni River. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that on the morning of 22-11-1996 at about 9 a.m. witness Deva Ram while proceeding to his field saw a man sleeping in a pit by the side of the road covered with a blanket. The said witness at that time thought that somebody dead-drunk may have been sleeping. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that on the morning of 22-11-1996 at about 9 a.m. witness Deva Ram while proceeding to his field saw a man sleeping in a pit by the side of the road covered with a blanket. The said witness at that time thought that somebody dead-drunk may have been sleeping. It is stated that when he was returning back to his home from his fields he saw the same man still lying in the same position. Therefore, becoming suspicious he went near the man and lifted the blanket and saw the dead body which was later identified as that ofPrema Ram Bishnoi. The said witness Deva Ram then reported this matter to Police Station Pipar City and lodged a complaint, Ext. P-l at 5.45 p.m. During the inquest of the dead body the investigating officer found a toll tax receipt, Ext. P-7, diesel purchase receipt, Ext. P-8 as also a visiting card of one Anil Jain, Ext. P-9. As stated above, the body was identified on 23-11-1996 by the elder brother of the deceased, Mahi Ram (PW 4). 5. The further case of the prosecution is that Dula Ram, ASI, Police Station, Merta City got information on 12-12-1996 at about 5 p.m. that an abandoned jeep was found on the bed of Luni River and proceeded to the sight and seized the jeep, Ext. P-11 in the presence of PW 16, Javari Lal and Duli Chand. While searching the said jeep the investigating officer found a plastic bag and one diary containing accounts of monthly payment made in regard to the instalments of the jeep. During the course of the investigation, the investigating agency came to know of the involvement of the appellant and others in the murder and stealing of the jeep ofPrema Ram Bishnoi. The accused persons were arrested on 25-12-1996 and on the basis of the statement made by them certain recoveries were made. The investigating agency also held identification parade wherein PWs 14, 18 and 21 who had seen the accused engaging the taxi on 21-11-1996, identified the accused persons. It is based on these findings the appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court as stated above. 6. The investigating agency also held identification parade wherein PWs 14, 18 and 21 who had seen the accused engaging the taxi on 21-11-1996, identified the accused persons. It is based on these findings the appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court as stated above. 6. From the evidence of PWs 14, 18 and 21 it is clear that these a appellants Koja Ram and Kailash along with the absconding accused had engaged the taxi of the deceased on 21-11-1996. They had also witnessed these three accused persons going along with the deceased on that day in the evening. The only challenge to their evidence has come by way of an objection to the identification parade wherein accused Koja Ram and Kailash were identified by PWs 14, 18 and 21. The objection is that these accused b persons were earlier shown to those witnesses, hence, the identification is bad. The courts below justly rejected this objection on the ground that at no time before the trial these appellants had taken that objection. 7. The taxi driven by the deceased carrying three passengers was seen by the petrol pump attendant from whom the deceased had purchased diesel for his jeep which is proved by the receipt found from the body of the deceased C as per Ext. P-8. Therefore, it is seen that these appellants were seen late in the evening of 21-11-1996 driving in the jeep of the deceased. The objection raised in this in regard to the evidence of this witness is that he had not identified the accused individually, suffice it to say that the fact that the three passengers were found in the jeep on the relevant day coupled with the evidence of witnesses PWs 14, 18 and 21 clearly shows that these accused d persons who had hired the taxi from the bus-stand were travelling in the said taxi. Therefore, the courts below were justified in placing reliance on the evidence of this petrol pump attendant. 8. The factum of the identity of the dead body is not seriously disputed by the appellant-accused nor the recovery of the jeep questioned by them. Therefore, the courts below were justified in placing reliance on the evidence of this petrol pump attendant. 8. The factum of the identity of the dead body is not seriously disputed by the appellant-accused nor the recovery of the jeep questioned by them. The courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record e by the prosecution in regard to the crime committed by appellants Koja Ram and Kailash and we find no justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below with regard to these appeals. Hence, their respective appeals fail. 9. However, in regard to appellant Pukh Raj, who was Accused 5 in the f trial court, the courts below have relied on the recovery made as per Ext. P-30. We have gone through the evidence in this regard and we find that the prosecution has not produced any material to establish the fact that the property recovered at his instance in fact belonged to the jeep which was stolen earlier or that this appellant had any prior knowledge that the goods recovered were actually stolen goods. It is worthwhile to mention in this regard at this stage that this appellant Pukh Raj was questioned under Section g 313 CrPC, no specific question in regard to the ownership of the goods. recovered was put to him. In these circumstances, we think it not safe to rely on the evidence of the prosecution to convict this appellant of the offence under Section 414 IPC. Therefore, giving benefit of doubt, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction imposed on him by the courts below.