Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 442 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-03-24

R.L.ANAND, VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Kashmiri Lal husband of Rekha Rani, the appellant herein is the deceased. Malkiat Singh, the other appellant was a tenant in the house of Kashmiri Lal. Both of them were charged under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing the murder of Kashmiri Lal on the night intervening 8/9 September, 1994. They now stand convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide impugned judgment dated February 5, 1996 and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months each. 2-3. The police swung into action on FIR Ex. PQ lodged by Rekha Rani appellant on 9.9.94. The investigation then took a sharp turn and booked both the appellants in this cases. The FIR in short runs as under :- Kashmiri Lal was employed as an Octroi Inspector who normally used to return to the house after performing his duties after 8 PM in a drunken state. On 8.9.94, at about 10 PM, she heard the noise of the car being parked outside the house and after hearing the sound of the call-bell she opened the door and found that the car was leaving towards Sale Tax road. Her husband who was in badly drunken state entered the house. After about half an hour when her husband and son Dhiraj were taking meals, some one pressed the call bell again and she opened the door. Two persons enquired from her as to whether her husband was in the house and in the meantime Kashmiri Lal asked her from inside the room to bring them inside. Both of them came inside the house and then her husband asked her to bring meals for them also. After finishing the meals, they started taking liquor. She removed the utensils. When she alongwith her son was going to other room for sleeping, Kashmiri Lal told her that they were to go to Garhshankar and Mahilpur the next day in the morning at 5 AM and that she would prepare the tea at that time. She then went to her room and closed the door from inside. She removed the utensils. When she alongwith her son was going to other room for sleeping, Kashmiri Lal told her that they were to go to Garhshankar and Mahilpur the next day in the morning at 5 AM and that she would prepare the tea at that time. She then went to her room and closed the door from inside. During the night at about 1 AM, she heard her husband and the other two persons abusing one another and thereafter they went up-stairs and after some time, she heard the noise of something falling on the ground and when she checked up, she found that the shelf had fallen and her husband was lying underneath the stair-case. Her husband asked her to save him from those unknown persons. In the meantime, one of the persons lifted a flower pot lying on the roof of the bath-room and hit her husband with that flower pot on the head as a result of which, the flower pot broke into pieces. When she was taking her husband towards the Baithak, one piece of the broken flower pot also hit on her head. She put her husband on the bed. Her husband was in a semi-conscious condition. In the meantime, the assailants came inside the Baithak and pulled her from the side of her husband and gave her fist blows. Her head had also struck against the door and she suffered an injury on her forehead. Then both the unknown persons took Kashmiri Lal into the court-yard saying that they would kill him. She made an attempt to rescue her husband but both the assailants caused injuries to him (Kashmiri Lal) with the broken pieces of the flower pot and he consequently died at the spot. Dhiraj her son who was sleeping also woke up and started crying. She took him to the Chobara and bolted the room from inside. Both the assailants asked her to open the door but when she refused to open the door, they bolted the room from outside and after scaling over the boundary wall, they managed to escape. Dhiraj her son who was sleeping also woke up and started crying. She took him to the Chobara and bolted the room from inside. Both the assailants asked her to open the door but when she refused to open the door, they bolted the room from outside and after scaling over the boundary wall, they managed to escape. She raised an alarm but no one came to her rescue and on the next day in the morning at about 8 AM, the brothers of her husband namely Chaman Lal and Subhash Chander came to their house and who after opening the door took them out and thereafter she came to the police station and lodged the report. 4. Inspector Ram Parkash PW16 after the registration of the FIR, took up the investigation, went to the scene of crime and prepared the inquest report Ex.PF. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination thereafter. The scene of crime was also got photographed. He also lifted blood stained soil. Watch of the deceased was also taken into possession which was in a broken condition. Thereafter he went inside the room where one empty bottle of Whisky was lying. SI Gurdip Singh PW11 developed the fingerprints found on that bottle and thereafter the bottle was also taken into possession. Two empty glasses and a can were also found lying on the table and were also taken into possession. From the court-yard of the house, the pieces of two broken flower pots were also taken into possession. The pieces of one broken flower pot stained with blood and the blood stained pieces were also taken into possession. The bed sheet and the pillow cover were removed from the bed lying in the room. They were stained with blood and consequently these were also taken into possession by Inspector Ram Parkash PW16. 5. On the back side of the house of the deceased, near the back wall, there was a footprint of the naked foot. Crime mould of that footprint was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Rekha Rani thereafter produced her Salwar and Jumper which were stained with blood and these were also taken into possession. 6. On September 14, 1994, both the appellants went to the house of Surinder Kumar PW12 and confessed before him having committed the murder of Kashmiri Lal. Rekha Rani thereafter produced her Salwar and Jumper which were stained with blood and these were also taken into possession. 6. On September 14, 1994, both the appellants went to the house of Surinder Kumar PW12 and confessed before him having committed the murder of Kashmiri Lal. Rekha Rani also admitted that she had given a false version on the next day of the incident to the effect that her husband has been murdered by some unknown persons. On September 15, 1994, Surinder Kumar came to the police station and gave his statement. 7. On September 16, 1994, SI Surinder Kumar PW15 raided the house of Rekha Rani appellant and from there arrested her and Malkiat Singh. Malkiat Singh was thereafter got medically examined. On 17.9.94, he interrogated Malkiat Singh appellant. He disclosed having kept concealed the bat Ex.P21 behind the cooler fitted in the room which he had taken on rent and got the same recovered. It was found to be blood stained. On 19.9.94 Malkiat Singh appellant was produced before Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Executive Magistrate and with his permission the mould of his right foot was prepared. On 20.9.1994, both the appellants were produced before the same Executive Magistrate and their specimen fingerprints were taken in his presence. 8. The blood-stained soil collected from the scene of occurrence, the pieces of broken cemented flower pot, the clothes of Rekha Rani, the bed sheet and the pillow cover, the wooden cricket bat were found to be stained with human blood as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh. The crime mould lifted from the scene of crime and the test mould bearing impression of right naked foot of Malkiat Singh on comparison was also found to be that of Malkiat Singh appellant upon test. Similarly, the Director, Fingerprints Bureau, Phillaur on comparison of the fingerprints photographed from the whisky bottle and sample impressions of Malkiat Singh opined that the same were of the one and the same person. 9. Both the appellants were consequently challaned. 10. After committal proceedings both the appellants were charged under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. 11. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses : Dr. Inder Mohan Sud has been examined as PW1 who had medico-legally examined Rekha Rani on 9.9.1994 at 4.45 PM and found the following injuries on her person :- "1. Both the appellants were consequently challaned. 10. After committal proceedings both the appellants were charged under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. 11. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses : Dr. Inder Mohan Sud has been examined as PW1 who had medico-legally examined Rekha Rani on 9.9.1994 at 4.45 PM and found the following injuries on her person :- "1. Diffused reddish blue swelling 5 cm x 2 cm over the upper part of back of right half of scalp, 1 cm from the midline, X-ray was advised. 2. Diffused reddish blue swelling 4.5 cm x 7.8 cm over the middle part of the forehead. X-ray was advised. 3. Complained of pain over the back of right scapular region with no external mark of injury. 4. Complained of pain over front of left knee with no external mark of injury." 12. This witness had also medico-legally examined Malkiat Singh on 16.9.1994 at 5.35 PM and found the following injuries on his person :- "1. Scabbed reddish brown abrasion .8 x .7 cm over the front of middle on third of right leg. 2. Small multiple reddish brown scabbed abrasions over the left buttock over an area of 3 x 4.5 cm. 3. Three scabbed brownish red on blackish side 0.2 x 0.2, 0.4 x 0.5 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 cm abrasions over the right foot 2 cm posterior to the basis of 4th and 5th toes. 4. Brownish black scabbed abrasions 0.6 cm x 0.3 cm over the inner side of left ankle. 5. Reddish based abrasion 0.6 x 1 cm over the inner side of left foot, 1 cm distal to injury No. 4 with margins black." 13. According to his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 2 on the person of Malkiat Singh were of the probable duration of 2 to 4 days and injury Nos. 3 to 5 were of the probable duration of 4 to 7 days. 14. Dr. Gurdev Singh has been examined as PW2. He had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Kashmiri Lal on 9.9.94 at 5.15 PM and observed the following injuries : "1. Lacerated wound 4.5 x 1 cm muscle deep on the right eyebrow with a swelling around, in an area of 5 cm diameter. 2. Lacerated wound 3 x 1-1/2 cm skin deep on the forehead in midline 5 cm from the base of nose. 3. Lacerated wound 4.5 x 1 cm muscle deep on the right eyebrow with a swelling around, in an area of 5 cm diameter. 2. Lacerated wound 3 x 1-1/2 cm skin deep on the forehead in midline 5 cm from the base of nose. 3. 4 x 1 cm lacerated wound muscle deep on left eyebrow with a swelling of 6 cm around the wound. 4. Lacerated wound 18 cm long with variable breadth from 1.5 to 3 cm, irregular, bone deep on scalp going anterio-posteriorly, anterior end was 3 cm from frontal hair-line, 1 cm right side of the midline. On dissection, there were multiple fractures of frontal, left and right parietal bones. On opening the skull, there was laceration of membranes and brain underlying the fractured bone. Craneil cavity contained clotted and fluid blood. 5. 2 x 0.5 cm lacerated wound skin deep on the lower lip in the middle. 6. 2 x 1-1/2 cm reddish blue abrasion on the nose in the middle. Clotted blood present in the nostrils. On dissection there was fracture of nasal bone. 7. 3 x 1.5 cm reddish blue abrasion on the front of right knee." 15. According to his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the injury to the brain in the ordinary course of nature which was sufficient to cause death. He had also sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner and vide report Ex. PD, the alcohol was found in the contents of viscera. 16. PW3 is Raj Kumar. He is a photographer. He has taken the photograph at the scene of the crime on 9.9.94 and the said photographs have been exhibited as Ex. P1 to P9. 17. Tirath Ram MHC PW4, Constable Gurminder Singh PW5, Constable Som Nath PW6, Constable Harnam Singh PW7 and Constable Hans Raj PW14 are the formal witnesses and they have tendered their affidavits Ex.PG, PH, PJ, PK and PO respectively. 18. ASI Ram Kumar has been examined as PW8. His statement is to the effect that on 19.9.1994 he prepared the mould of the right foot of Malkiat Singh appellant in the presence of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Naib Tehsildar-cum- Executive Magistrate and the said mould is Ex.P19. 19. Vijay Kumar Sharma has been examined as PW9. He has deposed that on 19.9.94, ASI Ram Kumar PW15 has produced Malkiat Singh appellant. 19. Vijay Kumar Sharma has been examined as PW9. He has deposed that on 19.9.94, ASI Ram Kumar PW15 has produced Malkiat Singh appellant. He had prepared the test mould of his right foot and thereafter he had put his initials on the mould. He further deposed that both the appellants were then produced before him on 20.9.1994, for obtaining their fingerprints and Head Constable Mohinderjit Singh PW10 had taken the fingerprints of Malkiat Singh appellant on sample paper Ex.PM/2 and that of Rekha Rani appellant on a sample paper Ex.PM/3 in his presence. 20. Head Constable Mohinderjit Singh has been examined as PW10. He has deposed about the specimen fingerprints taken on 20.9.94 in the presence of Shri Vijay Kumar Executive Magistrate. 21. SI Gurdeep Singh has been examined as PW11. His statement is to the effect that on 9.9.1994, he had gone to the scene of crime and developed fingerprints found on an empty half bottle of whisky lying on the table. He has further deposed that after developing the fingerprints the bottle was put in a wooden box and was sealed with the seal impression of Inspector Ram Parkash PW16 and the said wooden box was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PN. The bottle was exhibited as Ex.P20. 22. Surinder Kumar is PW12. Her is a witness of extra-judicial confession. His statement is to the effect that he is President of the Dairy Union, Hoshiarpur and on September 14, 1994 both the appellants had met him at his dairy farm at about 6 AM and thereafter Rekha Rani appellant first of all confessed before him that she and Malkiat Singh had murdered Kashmiri Lal and that he (Surinder Kumar) should produce them before the police as he had influence with the police. He has further deposed that Malkiat Singh appellant also confessed before him showing his involvement in the murder of Kashmiri Lal. He then deposed that Rekha Rani appellant had further told him that she had given a wrong version to the police saying that her husband has been murdered by some unknown persons. He was admitted in the cross-examination that certain criminal cases are pending against him in the court. 23. Chaman Lal has been examined as PW13. He is the brother of the deceased. He was admitted in the cross-examination that certain criminal cases are pending against him in the court. 23. Chaman Lal has been examined as PW13. He is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that on 9.9.94, in the morning he came to know that some mishap had taken place in the house of Kashmiri Lal and then accompanied by his brothers Ranbir Chand and Subhash Chander he went there. He has further deposed that the police had associated him during the inquest proceedings where his statement was recorded. He has then deposed that there was a footprint near the wall outside the house and Inspector Ram Parkash had prepared the mould of the said footprint and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/A which was attested by him. He has further deposed that in the drawing room, one empty half bottle on which the label Ritz Whisky was pasted was lying on the table and the police officer developed the finger-prints found on that bottle and a memo Ex.PN was prepared in this regard. He has further deposed that from the place of occurrence the pieces of two broken flower pots alongwith the creeper were also seized through seizure memos Ex. PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C. The police had also collected the blood stained soil and the same was put in a tin dabi and a parcel was prepared and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/D. He has then stated that plastic can and two glasses lying on the table were also seized through memo Ex.PW13/E. Rekha Rani appellant had also produced the blood stained Salwar and Jumper in his presence and the same were taken into possession vie memo Ex.PW13/F. The broken wrist watch which was lying near the dead body was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/G. The bloodstained bed sheet and the pillow cover were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/H. He has further deposed that again on September 17, 1994, the police had joined him and in his presence Malkiat Singh appellant during interrogation had disclosed that he had kept the cricket bat behind the cooler fitted in his residential room and in pursuance of disclosure statement Ex.PW13/J, got recovered the bat Ex.P21. 24. SI Surinder Kumar PW15 has deposed that on 15.9.94, he took over the investigation of this case. 24. SI Surinder Kumar PW15 has deposed that on 15.9.94, he took over the investigation of this case. He raided the house of Rekha Rani appellant situated in Mohalla Hari Nagar, Hoshiarpur and from there arrested both the appellants. He also got Malkiat Singh appellant medically examined. He had handed over application to ASI Ram Kumar for preparing the mould of the naked foot of Malkiat Singh and thereafter on 19.9.94, the mould of foot-print of Malkiat Singh was prepared. His evidence is further to the effect that he had interrogated Malkiat Singh appellant in the presence of Chaman Lal and Head Constable Charanjit Singh and thereafter on interrogation, Malkiat Singh appellant had got recovered the bat. 25. Inspector Ram Parkash has been examined as PW16. He is also one of the Investigators in this case. His investigation is already detailed by us in the preceding paras and need not be repeated. 26. Appellant Malkiat Singh in his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code has admitted that he had taken a room on rent from Kashmiri Lal since deceased. He has also admitted the fact of taking of specimen finger-prints and test mould in the presence of Executive Magistrate but denied the other prosecution allegations and stated that he was living as a tenant in one room of the house of the deceased Kashmiri Lal but has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion. He then alleges that he was taken into custody on 11.9.94 and thereafter was badly tortured and was medically examined. He then alleges that the police had forced him to put his finger-prints on the bottle and had also taken him to back side of the house for the purpose of fabricating evidence in regard to the presence of his foot-prints and thereafter he was challaned. He has then asserted that the door of his room opens in the street and has separate entry from the main road. 27. Rekha Rani appellant has also admitted that she has lodged the FIR Ex.PQ on 9.9.94 with the police. She then asserted that she had not made any extra- judicial confession before Surinder Kumar PW and she was falsely involved in this case by the brothers of the deceased in order to grab her property. She re-asserted her stand that her husband was in fact murdered by unknown assailants. 28. She then asserted that she had not made any extra- judicial confession before Surinder Kumar PW and she was falsely involved in this case by the brothers of the deceased in order to grab her property. She re-asserted her stand that her husband was in fact murdered by unknown assailants. 28. In defence the appellants have produced Ajay Kumar Ahlmad DW1 who has stated that Surinder Kumar PW12 was facing trial in criminal cases at Hoshiarpur. 29. Mahesh Kumar has been examined as DW2 who has also stated that Surinder Kumar and his wife Mohni were facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. 30. After consideration of entire evidence the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 31. We have heard Mr. T.P.S. Mann, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Senior Deputy Advocate-General, representing the State of Punjab. With their assistance we have also gone through the entire record of the case. 32. Mr. Mann has submitted with vehemence before us that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against any of the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Developing his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that Surinder Kumar PW12, before whom both the appellants had allegedly made extra-judicial confession has been disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that he is a shady character, involved in two criminal cases and facing trial in the said two cases. The possibility of his introduction as a false witness cannot be ruled out. Continuing his arguments, he then submitted that the present case hinges upon circumstantial evidence and the evidence collected by the prosecution against both the appellants is of a very weak character which cannot be taken as sufficient evidence for the purpose of conviction. 33. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution agency made an attempt to bring into evidence the two glasses, a plastic can and a bottle of Whisky in order to show that the appellant Malkiat Singh had consumed the liquor with Kashmiri Lal since deceased before committing the murder but this plank of evidence loses its force in the light of the inquest report Ex.PF where in column No. 23, there is no reference to these articles. 34. Mr. 34. Mr. Mann further develops his case saying that the foot mould even if as per the report has been shown to be that of Malkiat Singh appellant would not be termed as conclusive evidence against the appellants because it is an admitted fact that Malkiat Singh was a tenant in one of the rooms of the said house and as such his access to the house would not be seen with an eye of suspicion and foot mould impression relating to Malkiat Singh, thus, would not be a clincher so as to fasten his liability. 35. Learned counsel has also canvassed his criticism on the finger-prints report on two counts; firstly that Malkiat Singh appellant was taken in custody much prior to his production before Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Executive Magistrate and that he was forced to put his finger-prints on the bottle; secondly that the report tendered by the Finger-print Expert is also not a complete report because as per the report, the finger-prints were smudged at many places. Mr. Mann, thus, submitted that the reports submitted by Director, Finger-print Bureau Ex.PU and PU/1 should not be taken into consideration on the ground of smudging. 36. Advancing his arguments further Mr. Mann then contends that the prosecution has not brought forward any motive in this case for which the appellants would commit the murder of Kashmiri Lal. Dhiraj son of Kashmiri Lal deceased who happened to be present at the time of occurrence has also not been examined by the prosecution and this lacuna is also fatal to the prosecution, the learned counsel so contends. Mr. Mann then submits with full force that FIR Ex.PQ recorded at the instance of Rekha Rani appellant is quite convincing and there is no reason to doubt her statement because the medical evidence corroborates it as she had also received injuries in this occurrence at the hands of unknown assailants and thus, prays for acquittal of both the appellants. 37. On the other hand, Mr. Gill representing the State of Punjab has strenuously argued before us that the prosecution has been able to prove its case to the hilt. 37. On the other hand, Mr. Gill representing the State of Punjab has strenuously argued before us that the prosecution has been able to prove its case to the hilt. He contends that even if Surinder Kumar PW12 a witness of extra-judicial confession has been disbelieved by the trial Court, it would not adversely affect the cases of the prosecution because there are other convincing planks of the evidence which complete the chain pointing towards the guilt of both the appellants who had eliminated Kashmiri Lal on the night intervening 8/9 September, 1994. Mr. Gill further submitted that the conviction recorded by the trial Court deserves to be maintained. 38. After scanning the entire evidence very carefully, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against both the appellants through and through. 39. Surinder Kumar PW12 before whom both the appellants had confessed their guilt has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court on the ground that his evidence is not worthy of credence as he is involved in criminal cases registered against him by Inspector Ram Parkash PW16 and that the possibility of introducing him as a false witness to lend support to the circumstantial evidence cannot be ruled out. It is also observed by the learned trial Court that possibly both the appellants would not have reposed confidence in him for the reason that it is not the prosecution case that the police was after the appellants prior to 14.9.94 and as such there was no reason to seek help from him (Surinder Kumar) in producing the appellants before the police (para 50 of the trial Court judgment refers). We do not intend to disturb the finding of the learned trial Court in this regard and hold that Surinder Kumar, the witness of extra-judicial confession has rightly been disbelieved. 40. We may observe however that although Surinder Kumar PW12 has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court, yet the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against both the appellants and there is a complete chain of evidence pointing to an irresistible conclusion that the murder of Kashmiri Lal had been committed by these two appellants and none else. Our reasoning in arriving at the said conclusion is set out as follows :- 41. Our reasoning in arriving at the said conclusion is set out as follows :- 41. Rekha Rani appellant in her statement Ex.PQ which is basis of the FIR and is legally admissible as at that time she was not an accused took up the stand and we also intend to highlight the same once again, may be it is repetition, that on 8.9.94 at about 10 PM, she heard the noise of the car being parked outside her house and after hearing the sound of the call-bell, she opened the door and found her husband in an intoxicated condition. After about half an hour when her husband and son Dhiraj were taking meals, then she again heard the call bell and when she opened the door, two persons who were known to her husband but not known to her, came inside the house on the asking of her husband and were served with the meals on the direction of her husband any they took the meals. She further states that after the meal was over, they started taking liquor and then she removed the utensils and went to a room to sleep along with her son. She further stated that her husband told her that they had to go to Garhshankar and Mahilpur the next day in the morning i.e. on 9.9.94 at 5 AM and she was asked to prepare tea but at about 1-00 AM during wee hours she heard the said two unknown persons fighting with her husband and thereafter they went upstairs and then she heard the noise of something falling on the ground and then she noticed that the shelf had fallen and her husband was lying under the stair-case. One of the persons lifted flower pot lying on the roof of the bath-room and hit her husband on his head and the flower pot consequently broke into pieces. When she was making an effort to save her husband one piece of the broken flower pot also hit on her head. She then states that she put her husband on the bed and in the meantime assailants came inside the Baithak and pulled her from the side of her husband and gave her beatings. She also suffered an injury on her forehead as she struck against the door. She then states that she put her husband on the bed and in the meantime assailants came inside the Baithak and pulled her from the side of her husband and gave her beatings. She also suffered an injury on her forehead as she struck against the door. Thereafter her husband was brought into the court-yard saying that they would kill him and they again gave injuries with the broken flower pot and Kashmiri Lal consequently died. 42. In the meantime her son Dhiraj had waken up and she took him into a room and bolted it from inside and the two assailants then bolted the room from outside and left the house after scaling over the boundary wall. She then asserts that she made hue and cry but nobody listened to her and ultimately on the next day, the brothers of the deceased came there who took her out and she then narrated the whole incident. 43. At the first blush, it appears to be attractive but when seen minutely along with the other circumstances, it falls flat to the ground and one can comfortably conclude that it was a very clever move by Rekha Rani to cover her villainty and evil conduct. 44. Kashmiri Lal since deceased has received all the injuries around his face. The presence of high percentage of blood alcohol as is clear from viscera takes us to the inference that the deceased was hit on the head while he was lying fully drunk on the bed and the body was subsequently taken to the court-yard in order to create the evidence that he was actually killed there. The injuries indicate that possibly the deceased could not have received them due to the fall when the shelf had fallen into court-yard. We cannot at all believe the story that Rekha Rani appellant got up on hearing the noise of the fall of the shelf and found her husband lying under the stairs in an injured condition. It leads us to believe that it is a cooked up affair and in all probabilities the killing was pre-meditated. Since there is no fracture on the hand or the leg of Kashmiri Lal, we rule out the possibility of his falling from the shelf as projected by Rekha Rani appellant. 45. We are now seeing it from another angle. It leads us to believe that it is a cooked up affair and in all probabilities the killing was pre-meditated. Since there is no fracture on the hand or the leg of Kashmiri Lal, we rule out the possibility of his falling from the shelf as projected by Rekha Rani appellant. 45. We are now seeing it from another angle. The case projected by Rekha Rani appellant is that she took her husband into the room and put him on the bed after he had received injury on the head by the two assailants in her presence and thereafter the said two assailants had pulled her away from her husband and brought him into the court-yard. This is unbelievable. A single-handedly lady possibly could not have taken her husband in a semi-conscious condition into her room in the presence of two assailants who had already given an injury on the head of Kashmiri Lal by the broken flower pot and thereafter would have brought him outside once again in court-yard to cause more injuries. This again appears to be a very well pre-planned move. The sequence of circumstances compels us to conclude that it was not a job of one man. Rekha Rani appellant alone could not have planned the plot. Someone has certainly helped her in this exercise and there could not be any one else except Malkiat Singh appellant who was there in the house being a tenant. 46. Rekha Rani appellant has very intelligently cooked up a story that after her husband had received one injury on the head, she took him to the bed room and put him on the bed. The reason which strikes to our mind is that she knew that the bed sheet and the pillow cover were got bloodstained. The investigation shows that they were taken into possession. 47. The presence of trivial injuries on the person of Rekha Rani appellant is again a circumstance which takes us to draw an inference that she has self- suffered those injuries to make us believe that the same were sustained by her while trying to save her husband. 48. Another interesting part has been fabricated by Rekha Rani appellant when she states in her statement Ex.PQ that two unknown persons had consumed liquor with her husband after they had finished their meals. 48. Another interesting part has been fabricated by Rekha Rani appellant when she states in her statement Ex.PQ that two unknown persons had consumed liquor with her husband after they had finished their meals. If it is so, there should have been three glasses left on the table and not two as found by the police and this points out to the inference that only the deceased Kashmiri Lal who was habitual of taking liquor daily and Malkiat Singh appellant had taken liquor together in the room of Kashmiri Lal. 49. We have noticed another circumstance from the photographs which speak volumes of the fact that Kashmiri Lal was in fact assaulted while he was lying on the bed. The photographs indicate that Kashmiri Lal was wearing black colour underwear (Kachha) and half sleeve banian. Same is also shown over his dead body. Possibly he could not be in the same dress while taking liquor with the two unknown assailants. One of the photographs indicates that the two glasses, plastic can and the bottle of liquor are lying on a table in the bed room itself. This shows that after consuming the liquor Malkiat Singh appellant left the bed room of Kashmiri and then Kashmiri Lal since deceased had put off his clothes for the purpose of sleeping comfortably and when he was fast asleep he was attacked on his head with some instrument. Rekha Rani appellant then with the help of Malkiat Singh appellant brought the dead body of her husband in the court-yard and put her sari on it. Certainly the occurrence has not taken in the manner as projected by Rekha Rani appellant in her initial statement Ex.PQ. This all leads us to an irresistible conclusion that both the appellants have removed the hurdle in their way. 50. Another point which cannot escape our notice is that according to rough site plan, the house of Kashmiri Lal since deceased was surrounded by many other houses. Had Rekha Rani appellant really made an alarm after her husband was assaulted by two unknown persons, someone would have certainly come up to her help. The story projected that inspite of her alarms, nobody woke up is not at all appealing. Had Rekha Rani appellant really made an alarm after her husband was assaulted by two unknown persons, someone would have certainly come up to her help. The story projected that inspite of her alarms, nobody woke up is not at all appealing. The time chosen by Rekha Rani and Malkiat Singh appellants was the dead hour of the night so that conveniently they could finish Kashmiri Lal who was sleeping on the bed in a badly drunken state. 51. The argument advanced by Mr. Mann that the glasses, bottle and the plastic can have been introduced by the prosecution in order to complete the claim of circumstantial evidence is not at all convincing. Simply that there is no reference to these articles in column No. 23 of the inquest report Ex.PF would not be a ground to disbelieve the investigation. By now it is clearly ruled that the object of holding an inquest under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only to establish the cause of death. It is not even necessary to incorporate the statements of the witnesses in the inquest report. The investigating officer is supposed to indicate the injuries which he found on the body of the deceased person. Omission to mention the articles recovered from the scene of crime in the inquest report is, thus, of no consequence. We have once again very carefully seen column No. 23 in the inquest report Ex.PF. Inspector Ram Parkash PW16 has indicated in column No. 23 the broken watch lying near the dead body, blood stained pieces of broken cemented flower pot, one piece of flower pot stained with blood, one broken part of flower pot and other pieces of flower pot stained with blood. Column No. 23 relates to the articles found near the dead body. In this eventuality there was no necessity for the investigating officer to show the presence of two glasses, plastic can or the liquor bottle near the dead body because those were noticed by the investigating officer separately in the bed room on the table near the bed. A separate memo has been prepared in this respect. The fingerprints were also developed separately by SI Gurdeep Singh PW11 in this regard. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the recoveries are fabricated has no force and we hereby reject the same. 52. To be fair to Mr. A separate memo has been prepared in this respect. The fingerprints were also developed separately by SI Gurdeep Singh PW11 in this regard. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the recoveries are fabricated has no force and we hereby reject the same. 52. To be fair to Mr. Mann, we would now deal with the criticism canvassed by him on the report of the Fingerprint Expert. There is no doubt that as per the report of Fingerprint Bureau Ex.PU, certain photographs were partly smudged but the Director, Fingerprint Bureau has categorically stated in his report that there are comparable sufficient points of similarity for arriving at the conclusion that the impressions of the different thumbs and fingers are identical and are of one and the same person. He has touched eight points of similarity for arriving at the conclusion. For that purpose he has referred to photograph which was labelled by him as No. III. His positive opinion is that on certain photographs, the photographed impressions are the true representation of the original impressions. He is an experienced and skilled Fingerprint Expert to say as to whether a mark is usable as finger print or not. Similarly it is for him being a competent technical hand to examine and give his opinion as to whether identity could be established or not. Here is the instant case the fingerprint impression is a pointer towards the guilt of Malkiat Singh appellant. The science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt. We have no reason to disbelieve the opinion of the Director, Fingerprint Bureau Ex.PU and PU/1. The argument advanced by Mr. Mann on this count is also rejected. 53. There is no doubt that evidence of identification of footprints is not of much reliance and in this particular case, Malkiat Singh appellant had access to the house and the presence of the footprint in the house would certainly not convince us as an individual piece of evidence for the purpose of maintaining conviction but we are considering this evidence as a track evidence and the same can be relied upon as one of the planks alongwith other circumstances, which are pointing towards the culpability of Malkiat Singh appellant. We are certainly not going to believe the plea of Malkiat Singh appellant that he was taken in custody on 11.9.94 and subsequently his formal arrest was shown on 15.9.94. The investigation of the present case shows that the footprint of the naked foot in the shape of crime mould Ex.P27 was taken on 9.9.94 itself from the backside of the house near the back wall. The room which has been taken on rent by Malkiat Singh appellant has an opening from the front side and the footprint impression adjoining the back wall of the house goes to show that Malkiat Singh had scaled over the back wall of the house. In our view identity of Malkiat Singh appellant is fixed who initially enjoyed liquor with Kashmiri Lal since deceased in his bed room and thereafter committed his murder with the help of Rekha Rani his co-accused. 54. Although there is no direct motive highlighted by the prosecution in this case yet the circumstances when taken collectively, take us to draw only one inference that both the appellants were having illicit intimacy and they planned to eliminate Kashmiri Lal, a hurdle in their way. The FIR Ex.PQ lodged by Rekha Rani appellant was just to hoodwink the prosecution agency. 55. When a case is hinging upon the circumstantial evidence, the test laid down is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is said to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; the circumstantial evidence must be complete and capable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused; the circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 56. Applying the well settled test very cautiously, we arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to provide a complete chain of evidence pointing towards an irresistible conclusion that both the appellants have committed the murder of Kashmiri Lal. 57. The charge against both the appellants, thus, stands proved to the hilt. 58. 56. Applying the well settled test very cautiously, we arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to provide a complete chain of evidence pointing towards an irresistible conclusion that both the appellants have committed the murder of Kashmiri Lal. 57. The charge against both the appellants, thus, stands proved to the hilt. 58. William Shakespeare has aptly remarked in Hamlet, one of his famous plays, "Frailty thy name is woman". 59. As a resume of all what has been said above, the present appeal fails being devoid of any merit and is, hereby dismissed. 60. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court and the concerned jail authorities. Appeal dismissed.