JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 31, 2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District - Juunjhunu in Sessions Case No.36/99, whereby he convicted and sentenced each of the accused - appellants, namely, Krishan Kumar and Karnail Singh under section 394 Indian Penal Code, seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's Rigorous Imprisonment and under section 201 Indian Penal Code, seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's Rigorous Imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brevity, are that on December 12, 1998, one Bhagirath Mal s/o Dhukal Ram r/o Beelva lodged a written report in the Police Station, Khetri stating, inter alia, therein that on the day of the occurrence, at about 3 P.M., he received a information from Onkar s/o Shri Bhagwana by caste Gujar, village Beelva, tehsil Khetri that a dead body is lying in the 'kachcha rasta' which goes from Khetri to Nangli in the forest. Then he along with Onkar s/o Bhagwana and some other persons went to the scene of the occurrence and saw that the dead body is lying there and an iron wire is wrapped around the neck of the deceased. A 'pent'; and shirt are worn by the deceased and a 'chaddar' is also lying near the dead body. He also saw the signs of tyre of the vehicle. The deceased is aged about 30 years. The informant further stated in the written report that it appears that some unknown persons have committed the murder and dropped the dead body there. Lastly, the informant stated that he is making a complaint, so that necessary action may be taken. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, FIR No.385/98 under section 302 and 201 was registered by the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Khetri, District - Jhun-jhunu and investigation was taken up. 4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared inquest report (Panchama) of the dead body vide Ex. P3 site - plan of the incident (Ex.P5), fard for identification of the dead body (Ex.P6) and seizure memo of mudguard of the vehicle (Ex.P4). 4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared inquest report (Panchama) of the dead body vide Ex. P3 site - plan of the incident (Ex.P5), fard for identification of the dead body (Ex.P6) and seizure memo of mudguard of the vehicle (Ex.P4). He also seized the iron wire which was wrapped around the neck of the deceased vide Ex.P7 and clothes of the deceased vide Ex.P8. The autopsy on the dead body was got performed by the Doctor and the Post - Mortem Report (Ex.P23) was received by the Investigation Officer. The 10 arrested accused Krishan Kumar (Ex.P11) and accused Karnail Singh (Ex.P12) and in consequence to their voluntary disclosure statements and at their instance, site plans (Exs.P16 and P17) were prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The vehicle alleged to have been used in the crime, bearing Registration No. HR 18/1701, was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. P20. 5. After completing the necessary investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted challan against the accused appellants under sections 302, 201 and 34, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, who, in turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri framed charges against the accused appellants under sections 302, 201, 394 and in the alternative under sections 302/34, 201/34 and 394/34, Indian Penal Code and were read over to them. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution produced and examined as many as 22 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.22) and exhibited 31 documents (Fx.P1 to Ex.P31). In defence, the accused produced no evidence. The explanations of the accused under sections 313, Criminal Procedure Code, were recorded. They denied the allegations and alleged that they have been falsely implicated. 8. After hearing the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, as well as learned counsel for the accused - appellants and examining the material available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri convicted and sentenced the accused - appellants vide his judgment dated March 31, 2001 as mentioned above. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the accused - appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 10. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the accused - appellants have preferred the instant appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings of the trial court are against the facts and material on record. He further contended that the learned trial court has erred in law in not taking into consideration the proper appreciation of the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective. Apart from that, there is serious discrepancy on material point in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which goes to the root of the case, therefore, in this situation, the conviction of the accused - appellants is bad and the same deserves to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there is no eye - witness to the occurrence and in the absence of positive and cogent evidence, the accused appellants have wrongly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. He also contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly appreciated the statements of the witnesses PW-9 Nathu PW-13 Ram Chandra, PW-17 Shiv Charan, PW-18 Moorti and PW-20 Vimal Kumar. They have deposed that the accused appellants had gone to Delhi with deceased Ramesh Kumar from Loharu in Armada Jeep. Their statement, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, are not trustworthy and could not have been relied upon by the learned trial Court. Apart from that, there are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the persecution witnesses and PW-16 Vinod Kumar has not corroborated the story of the prosecution and he has been declared hostile. 12. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the cases of Was Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra ([2004] 6 SCC 158) , Thimma v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1971 SC 1871 ) and State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kamla (1991) Cr.L.J. 602) and contended that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and vehemently argued that it is a full proof case, which led to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He supported the reasons and observations given by the trial Court in toto. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and vehemently argued that it is a full proof case, which led to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He supported the reasons and observations given by the trial Court in toto. He has also referred to the statements of the prosecution witnesses to prove that the crime was committed by both the accused Krishna Kumar and Kamal Singh respectively. 14. PW-1 Bhagirath Mal has deposed that about a year ago, he has lodged a report Ex. P1 with the Police Station, Khetri. He further deposed that he Es' t the report written by some one else and, thereafter, he read it and put signatures. On the basis of that report FIR was chalked out by the SHO. He also deposed that the inquest report of the dead body was prepared in his presence and a rubber piece of mudguard o the vehicle was also recovered by the Police in his presence. In the cross - examination, he stated that he gave the report to the police, prior to reaching the place of occurrence. 15. PW-4 Onkar, PW-7 Banshi, PW-11 Sanjeev Kumar and PW-14 Mahipal have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, they were declared hostile by the trial Court. 16. PW-8 Nathu has deposed that he was an employee of Vimal Bhojaniya, He also used to look after his domestic as well as agricultural work. At about one and a half years ago, he had hired the vehicle of Ramesh for dropping Vimal Bhojaniya to Delhi. He further deposed that Armada Vehicle Number was 1711, then deposed that it was 1701. He booked the vehicle of Ramesh from Luharu to Delhi. It was booked around 12 in the noon, @ Rs. 3.25 per k.m. He had instructed Ramesh, the driver of the vehicle, to bring it at 4.00 Clock. The vehicle was boarded by Vimal, his wife, Ram Bhagat and Krishan. He also deposed that Krishan is known to him, because he also used to drive the vehicle. This vehicle was driven by Ramesh. He deposed that after reaching Delhi, Vimal Seth telephoned him that he had reached there safely. In cross-examination, he stated when the vehicle returned form Delhi, is not known to him. He did not see the vehicle after it returned from Delhi. 17. PW-15 Dr. This vehicle was driven by Ramesh. He deposed that after reaching Delhi, Vimal Seth telephoned him that he had reached there safely. In cross-examination, he stated when the vehicle returned form Delhi, is not known to him. He did not see the vehicle after it returned from Delhi. 17. PW-15 Dr. B.D. Sharma and PW-21 Dr. Harlal Singh have deposed that on 12th December, 1998, they were posted at the Government Ajit Hospital, Khetri and on the 'their' of the S.H.O., they preformed the Post - Mortem Examination of the dead body of Ramesh Chand. The Medical Board, consisting of the aforesaid two Doctors, gave is opinion that all the injuries were ante - mortem in nature, duration of the death was about 24 to 36 hours from the date and time of post mortem examination and the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation of neck by iron wire and was homicidal in nature. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P23) bears their signatures. 18. PW-13 Ram Chandra, who is brother of the deceased, has deposed that on 10th October, (sic 'December'?) 1998, Nathu Mali has called his brother for hiring the vehicle for going to Delhi. His brother and Krishan Kumar had gone to Delhi in vehicle to drop Vimal Bhojaniya. They started for Delhi in the evening. Thereafter, he received the information that a dead body is lying in the jungle of Beelva. He further deposed that Ramesh Kumar was done to death by Krishna Kumar and Karnail Singh and his vehicle was looted by them. The Police prepared site plan in his presence. On the place of occurrence, signs of tyre of the vehicle were also found visible. He also deposed that it was revealed by Krishna Kumar and Karnail Singh that they have killed Ramesh by tightening an iron wire around his neck. In cross - examination, nothing was elicited from the statement of this witness, which may enable us to draw an adverse inference against the deposition of this witness. 19. PW-17 Shiv Charan has deposed that on 10th December, 1998, he was sitting at the Bus Stand, where Ramesh, Krishna and Karnail Singh had arrived there and they told him that they were going to Delhi to drop the passenger and, thereafter, they left for their destination. 19. PW-17 Shiv Charan has deposed that on 10th December, 1998, he was sitting at the Bus Stand, where Ramesh, Krishna and Karnail Singh had arrived there and they told him that they were going to Delhi to drop the passenger and, thereafter, they left for their destination. After 2 - 3 days, he heard that Ramesh has been murdered. This witness also identified the accused Krishna Kumar and Kamail Singh in the Court. He also deposed that there was some money dispute between Krishna and Ramesh and Krishna had stated Ramesh that he would teach him a lesson. 20. PW-18 Smt. Murti, who is wife of the deceased Ramesh Kumar, has deposed that on 10th of December, 1998 her husband Ramesh along with Krishna Kumar has come to her house and told her that they (her husband Ramesh and accused Krishna) are going to Delhi to drop Vimal Bhojaniya. They also told her that they would return in the night. She further deposed that when her husband did not turn up, she along with her son Vikas went to Nathu Saini. Nathu Saini made a telephonic talk with Vimal Byojaniya at Delhi and told her that after dropping Vimal at Delhi in the night, they had started for village in the night itself. She deposed that she has a suspicion that her husband has been done away by Ramesh (sic 'Krishna Kumar'?) and Karnail Singh. She was cross-examined at length, but her testimony remained unshaken. 21. PW-19 Vikas, who is a minor and son of the deceased Ramesh and is studying in Class X, has deposed that his father Ramesh along with Krishna and Karnail Singh had gone to Delhi to drop Vimal Bhojaniya. When his father did not turn up, then he and his mother went to Nathu Mali. He made a telephonic talk at Delhi and told them that his father had started for village from Delhi in the night itself. On 13th he came to know that his father has been done away by Krishna Kumar and Karnail Singh. In cross - examination, he stated that since his father had gone to Delhi along with the accused, therefore, he had a suspicion that his father has been murdered by them. 22. PW-20 Virnal Kumar Bhojaniya has deposed that he had hired the vehicle of Ramesh for going to Delhi. In cross - examination, he stated that since his father had gone to Delhi along with the accused, therefore, he had a suspicion that his father has been murdered by them. 22. PW-20 Virnal Kumar Bhojaniya has deposed that he had hired the vehicle of Ramesh for going to Delhi. It was an Armada vehicle of white colour and was hired by him through Nathu. He also deposed that in addition to driver Ramesh, one more person was sitting in the vehicle. They dropped him (Vimal) and his family at Delhi in the night at around 10 - 11.00 P.M. and, thereafter, left for village in the night itself. 23. PW-2 Kashi Ram, Investigating Officer, has deposed that on 12th December, 1998, he was posted as Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Khetri. On that day, he received a written report (Ex.P - 1) from Bhagirath Mal. On the basis of that report, FIR (Ex.P2) was chalked out and the investigation of the case was taken up by him. He prepared inquest report of the dead body of Ramesh vide Ex.P - 3 and recovered a rubber piece of mudguard of rear wheel of the vehicle. He also got the dead body identified vide Ex.P - 6 and seized an iron wire (Ex.P7), which was tightened around the neck of the deceased Ramesh Kumar. He also seized the clothes of the deceased vide Ex.P - 8 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He got the dead body of the deceased and the place of occurrence photographed by the Photographer. He arrested accused Krishna Kumar vide Ex.P - 11 and accused Karnail Singh vide Ex.P - 12. On the voluntary disclosure statements and at the instance of both the accused, he prepared the site plan of the occurrence vide Ex.P - 16. He also seized the vehicle Armada No.H.18 1701 at the instance of the accused and prepared fard (Ex.P - 20). He also got the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased performed by the Medical Board. Lastly, he deposed that the deposited all the seized and sealed articles in the Malkhana. This Investigating Officer was cross - examined at length, but noting could be elicited from his deposition, which may enable us to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case. 24. Lastly, he deposed that the deposited all the seized and sealed articles in the Malkhana. This Investigating Officer was cross - examined at length, but noting could be elicited from his deposition, which may enable us to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case. 24. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and scanned, evaluated and scrutinised the material available on record carefully. 25. It may be stated that no doubt, it is a case of circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances is so complete that the accused persons cannot escape from the liability of committing the crime. The circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, show that on 10th of December, 1998, the accused Krishna Kumar and deceased Ramesh had gone to Delhi to drop Vimal Bhojaniya (P.W.28). Then accused Karnail Singh also accompanied them. The vehicle returned from Delhi in the same night, but the accused took the vehicle along with the deceased to the forest through 'kachcha - rasta' of Nangli village, where at an isolated place of jungle, they tightened the iron wire around the neck of the deceased and committed his murder, as is evident from their voluntary disclosure statements as well as the site plan of the incident drawn by the Police at their instance. Apart from that, vehicle in question was seized from their possession. The accused also changed the number plate of the vehicle. Dr. B.D. Sharma (P.W.15) has also testified that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to tightening the said iron wire around his neck. All the injuries were ante - mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. So far as last seen evidence is concerned, it is amply clear from the dispositions of Nathu (P.W.9) and Vinod Kumar (P.W.16) that the accused accompanied the deceased in the vehicle. It is also relevant to mention here that the death of the deceased Ramesh cannot be caused by accused Krishna Kumar alone by tightening an i - on wire around his neck. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, inference can be drawn that both the accused appellants - Krishan Kumar and Karnail Singh - have committed the murder of deceased - Ramesh Kumar. 26. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, inference can be drawn that both the accused appellants - Krishan Kumar and Karnail Singh - have committed the murder of deceased - Ramesh Kumar. 26. No doubt, some contradictions were found in the statements of the witnesses, but they are of minor in nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies grantee that the witnesses are not tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses would not affect their testimony. 27. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused - appellants. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused appellants with the commission of the crime and the above circumstances form a chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused - appellants and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused appellants. 28. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting and sentencing the accused - appellants Krishan Kumar and Karnail Singh for the offence under Sections 302, 394 and 201, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence on record. 29. We see no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded in his judgment dated March 31, 2001. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District - Jhunjhunu is maintained. 30. In the result,the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******