Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The appellants, in these appeals, arising from the Judgment dated 17-1-2002 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur convicting of offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, nowhere else but in the open jail situated in Mandore, Jodhpur. Before giving factual matrix of the case, it would be convenient to give a prepatory note about the place of occurrence i.e. Open Jail. .2. It is claimed that in the history of prison development in India, the establishment of open prison is the most remarkable innovation. It has opened a new vista in the realm of correctional treatment promising an offender greater freedom, natural surrounding and lesser tension which culminate in creating an atmosphere more conducive to reform himself and to achieve social, moral and economic rehabilitation in the society. The underlying philosophy of administration, mode of maintaining discipline and enforcement of orders and assessment of problems and methods of tackling them, being different from those of the closed prisons, instil a sense of self -esteem and social responsibility among prisoners and ease the pains of imprisonment to a greater extent. The Government of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred under clause (18) of Section 59 Prisons Act, 1894 has framed the Rules for sending convicts to open air camps. The preamble of the Rules as provided underlying object is as follows:-“Preamble.-- .Whereas it is necessary to frame rules for sending convicts to Open air camps with a view to encourage good conduct satisfactory performance of work and a life of self-discipline among the convicts of Rajasthan. and to provide these convicts with a pre-release, opportunity to learn social adjustment and economic self dependence.” .3. TheRules define, “Open air camp” means the place which is declared to be an Open Camp for the detention of prisoners in pursuance of Clause (I) of Section 3 of the Prisons Act, 1894. The Rules provide eligibility and ineligibility for admission to open air camp. The convicts recommended by the committee constituted under the Rules are sent to the open air camp. They are supposed to do work assigned to them in the open air camp. Under Rule 8 such convicts are entitled to wages of earning as earned by them on being utilised their services for the use of themselves or their family. The convicts recommended by the committee constituted under the Rules are sent to the open air camp. They are supposed to do work assigned to them in the open air camp. Under Rule 8 such convicts are entitled to wages of earning as earned by them on being utilised their services for the use of themselves or their family. The prisoners, group of prisoners are allotted suitable residential accommodation. They are given opportunity to make their own cooking arrangement for their food from their own earnings, within the camp. The prisoners can keep their families in the open camp with the permission of the Inspector General of Prisons. Internal management of the camp vests in the Prisoners’ Panchayat and other committees. Panchas are elected by the prisoners. There are certain nominations by the Inspector General of Prisons. Prisoners’ Panchayat is empowered to deal with minor acts of omissionlcommissionl misconduct of the prisoners. It has been vested with the power to impose penalty on the defaulters to certain extent. Prisoners are supposed to attend roll call each morning and evening at the .time fixed by the Inspector General of Prisons. There is a prisoners open air advisory committee at the State level under the Director, Correctional Services. 4. The backdrop in which the alleged incident has taken place is traced to a land dispute between two fractions in which duo Bhanwar Singh and Inder Singh alleged to have been murdered at the hands of deceased Manak Ram and PW-3 Pokar Ram. Both of them were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the order of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 17-10-1989. They were transferred to open air camp in July, 1996. Appellant Kan Singh, who was also on the charge murder undergoing imprisonment for life in another case, was already in the open air camp since June, 1995. Co-accused Bhim Singh (absconding) was also in the open air camp being life convict. He was released from the jail sometime prior to the present incident. It is alleged that sons of Bhanwar Singh namely Pratap Singh and Girdhari Singh and so as the son of Inder Singh namely Nakhat Singh (absconding) conspired with Kan Singh and Bhim Singh, and committed murder of Manak Ram. He was released from the jail sometime prior to the present incident. It is alleged that sons of Bhanwar Singh namely Pratap Singh and Girdhari Singh and so as the son of Inder Singh namely Nakhat Singh (absconding) conspired with Kan Singh and Bhim Singh, and committed murder of Manak Ram. As per the prosecution case, on 16-1-1998 appellant Kan Singh, Bhim Singh (absconding) and four unknown persons committed the murder of Manak Ram while he was in the open air camp, The unknown persons have been, identified as Kirta Ram, Gyan Singh and Nakhat Singh. Seven persons were arraigned by the police, namely appellants Kan Singh, Kirta Ram, Gyan Chand, absconding accused Bhim Singh and Nakhat Singh. Against two persons namely Pratap Singh and Girdhari Singh charges framed by the trial Court came to be quashed by this Court. .5. Reverting to the factual matrix of the case, a First Information Report Exhibit P-47 was registered at Police Station, Mandore, Jodhpur on 17-1-1998 at 3.30 a.m. on the basis of parcha bayan Exhibit. P-i of PW-3 Pokar Ram. He stated that he along with his deceased brother Manak Ram along with their families was undergoing the sentence in open air camp at Mandore, Jodhpur. They were living in separate quarters. At about 11.00 a.m. on 16-1-1998, on being summoned by Head Constable through Mana Ram and Jagmal Ram, he reached near the quarter of his deceased brother Manak Ram and the appellant Kan Singh. The Head Constable gave him shocking news that his brother was killed by someone. Wife of his brother was weeping outside the quarter. She disclosed that while she along with her husband was sleeping in the quarter, appellant Kan Singh gave a call from outside and asked her husband Manak Ram to come out. He was also accompanied with Bhim Singh who also asked him to come out. After sometime, the gate was opened by her husband Manak Ram. Kan Singh and Bhim Singh along with four unidentified persons mounted attack on him. On intervention by her son PW- 1 Mangilal, sword blows were given to him as well on account of which his palm of one hand was chopped off . She also stated that her son Mangilal could identify those persons. Kan Singh and Bhim Singh along with four unidentified persons mounted attack on him. On intervention by her son PW- 1 Mangilal, sword blows were given to him as well on account of which his palm of one hand was chopped off . She also stated that her son Mangilal could identify those persons. Police registered a case for offence under Sections 302, 303, 307, 147, 148, 149, 458 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and proceeded with investigation. DW-7 Bal Singh who was posted at the open air camp informed the authorities of Central Jail, Jodhpur as well as to the police. PW-8 Nand Singh, Jailor of Central Jail, Jodhpur on receiving the information, after further informing the higher authorities, sent the jail security staff at open air camp, Mandore. PW-23 Chandan Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Mandore on receiving the telephonic message at 12.50 a.m. on 17-1-1998, reached on the spot after making entry in the rojnamcha register vide Exhibit P-55. He recorded the statement of PW-3 Pokar Ram vide Exhibit P-i. On the basis of said parcha bayan, he registered the First Information Report. PW-21 Jagdish Chandra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City (East) also reached on the spot. He prepared the site plan Exhibit P-3. He also found that PW- 1 Mangilal was lying in seriously wounded condition. He immediately removed him to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital at Jodhpur for treatment. After completing the formalities, dead body of deceased Manak Ram was sent for post mortem. Autopsy was conducted by PW-7 Dr. N. S. Kothari. He prepared the Post Mortem Report Exhibit P-26 and noticed following injuries :- 1. Incised wound: 5.0 cm x 1.0 cm x scalp deep on the left frontal region on the scalp (vertical). 2. Incised wound: 6.0 cm. x 03 x skin deep on the left forehead and eyebrow. 3. Incised wound : 7.0 cm. x 3.0 x bone deep on the upper 1/3 left side of neck posteriolaterally behind left ear. .4. Incised wound (cut throat): 10.0 cm x 5.0 cm (transverse) on the upper 1/3 part neck below chin with cutting of trachea and blood vessel (carotid artery and jugular veins) on the left side and muscles on the both side of neck antero-laterally. .5. Incised wound (flap): 7.0 cmx 4.0 cmx muscles deep on the right shoulder anteriorly. 6. .4. Incised wound (cut throat): 10.0 cm x 5.0 cm (transverse) on the upper 1/3 part neck below chin with cutting of trachea and blood vessel (carotid artery and jugular veins) on the left side and muscles on the both side of neck antero-laterally. .5. Incised wound (flap): 7.0 cmx 4.0 cmx muscles deep on the right shoulder anteriorly. 6. Incised wound : 15.0 cm x 5. 0 x bone deep lower 1/3 right forearm with trans-mature amputation of right hand at the level of right wrist. 7. Incised wound: 50.0 cm x 5.5 cm (flap) with cutting of muscle, head of humerus (halfing) and lower part of left humerus and lethal condyle of humerus with exposure of upper end of radius and ulna with dislocation of elbow. The cut wound extending from the back of left shoulder to elbow and upper 1/3 forearm. 8. Incised wound: 14.0 cm x 12.0 cm x bone deep (flap) on the back of chest and upper part of the right side near mid line lethal to scapula with cutting of ribs (four) and dorsal vertebrae 2, 3rd with spinal cord injury and there is cutting of right lung under the fractured rib with haemochiral abons (sic) 500 ml. The wound extending from lower part of back foreneck to upper chest right side. 9. Incised wound : 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep back of upper part of neck (transverse). 10. Incised wound : 4.5 cmx 1.0 cmx muscle deep on the 1/3 part neck (transverse). 11. Incised wound: 3.0 cmx 1.0 cmx muscle deep back of lower part of chest (transverse). 12. Incised wound : 4.0 cmx 1.0 cmx muscle deep back of lower chest mid line (transverse). 13. Incised wound: 5.0 cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep mid lumbar region. 14. Incised wound: 6.0 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep on the right side occipital region of the scalp.” In the opinion of Doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple sharp cutting wounds. On the same day, appellant Kan Singh was arrested. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offence under Sections 148, 460, 302, 307/149, 120-B I.P.C. and 3 (2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. Prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the same day, appellant Kan Singh was arrested. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offence under Sections 148, 460, 302, 307/149, 120-B I.P.C. and 3 (2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. Prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. Appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. Appellant Kan Singh stated that from the moment police arrived on the place of occurrence, he was through out in his quarter. On the next day, in the afternoon at about 2:00 p.m., he was arrested, till then, none of the jail authorities knew at to who had committed the murder. Other appellants Kirta Ram and Gyan Chand pleaded alibi. They stated that they were at their place of business Abmedabad at the time of incident. Appellants examined seven witnesses in support of their plea namely DW- 1 Mobata Ram, DW-2 Jagmal Singh, DW-3 Kirta Ram, DW-4 Dalji, DW-5 Govind, DW-6 Mana Ram and DW-7 Bal Singh. Trial Court relying on the testimony of eye witnesses and other circumstantial evidence, found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Accordingly, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner already noticed. 6. We have heard learned counsel Shri B. S. Rathore, Shri Niranjan Gaur and Shri Doongar Singh for the appellants Kan Singh, Kirta Ram and Gyan Chand respectively. It is contended that it was a blind murder and since none of the alleged eye witnesses had actually seen the occurrence, they have roped in the appellants only on account of previous enmity on mere suspicion. It is further submitted that Exhibit P-i parcha bayan on the basis of which First Information Report Exhibit P-17 has been registered is spurious document as it finds the names of accused persons while as per the prosecution witnesses PW-3 Pokar Ram was not knowing the names of assailants. It is further submitted that Incharge of the open air camp who received the information of the incident at the earliest namely Head-Constable Bal Singh who is a material witness has not been produced by the prosecution. He has been produced by the defence as DW-7. He has not supported the prosecution case. As per his version, names of assailants were not known. He has been produced by the defence as DW-7. He has not supported the prosecution case. As per his version, names of assailants were not known. Number of contradictions and embellishment in the statement of prosecution witnesses have been pointed out by the learned counsel. Mr. Niranjan Gaur and Doongar Singh have severely criticised the identification parade. It is also submitted that prosecution has concocted the evidence of conspiracy. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Shri J. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the complainant has supported the Judgment of the trial Court. 7. Before averting to the rival contentions, it would be convenient to survey the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence. 8. PW-1 Mangilal aged 15 years is the son of deceased Manak Ram. He is most material witness in the case being injured eyewitness. He deposed that on 16-1-1998, he also with his father, mother and younger sister after taking the dinner, had retired for sleeping. They closed the gate of quarter. At about 10.30 p.m. somebody gave a call to his deceased father Manak to come out. He further stated that said call was of Kan Singh. Thereafter, the call was given by Bhim Singh to his deceased father Manak on the pretext that he had met with an accident. Witness stated that he knew Bhim Singh and Kan Singh as they used to often visit their quarter. Thereafter Kan Singh assured his father that he should not worry as he was with them. Both of them persisted for opening the gate of quarter. After sometime, his deceased father opened the gate. The moment the gate was opened, Kan Singh and Bhim Singh pin down his deceased father and mounted attack by sword. He tried to cover his father. Bhim Singh gave a sword blow on him cutting the palm. Thereafter, Bhim Singh attacked on him twice. He further stated that Bhim Singh and Kan Singh were accompanied by four unidentified persons. He could identify on seeing them. All the accused persons dragged his deceased father Manak. He further stated that hearing the cries, his mother also came out of the quarter. His mother covered him with a mattress. His father succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He was removed to the hospital by the police. He could identify on seeing them. All the accused persons dragged his deceased father Manak. He further stated that hearing the cries, his mother also came out of the quarter. His mother covered him with a mattress. His father succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He was removed to the hospital by the police. Nothing substantial could be brought in the cross-examination to shake the version given by this witness. His statement finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-2 Radha, PW-3 Pokar Ram and other witnesses. It further finds corroboration from the medical evidence. It is stated by PW-7 Dr. N. S. Kothari that he examined Mangilal on 17-1-1998 at 2.10 a.m. in the Emergency Ward and prepared the Injury Report vide Exhibit P-27. He noticed following injuries :- 1. Incised wound 9.0 x 7.0 x bone deep on the left temporal region and part of left ear about (flap) with bleeding. 2. Incised wound with transversive amputation of left hand at the level of wrist with missing of hand. 3. Incised wound 15.0 cmx 2.5 cmx bone deep back of right shoulder and scapular region.” The irjury No. 2 was found to be grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon. As per X-Ray report Exhibit P-18, injuries No. 1 and 3 were found to be grievous. He has also proved the Post Mortem Report of the deceased Manak Ram vide Exhibit P-26. PW-6 Dr. A. L. Chouhan has stated that on 22-1-1998, he was posted as Assistant Professor in the Radiology Department of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. It is not in dispute that deceased Manak Ram was living in the quarter of open air camp along with his family. Thus, the presence of this witness at the time of incident is quite natural. He himself has sustained severe injuries for which he had to remain in the hospital for more than a month. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. 9. PW-2 Smt. Radha is the wife of deceased Manak Ram. She was also staying with her husband in the quarter of open air camp along with her husband deceased Manak Ram. She was accompanied by his son PW-1 Mangilal and a minor daughter aged three years. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. 9. PW-2 Smt. Radha is the wife of deceased Manak Ram. She was also staying with her husband in the quarter of open air camp along with her husband deceased Manak Ram. She was accompanied by his son PW-1 Mangilal and a minor daughter aged three years. It is deposed by her that on the date of incident while she along with her husband and other family members were sleeping in the quarter, appellant Kan Singh gave a call to her husband Manak and asked him to come out. He was accompanied by Bhim Singh who also asked her husband to come out as he has met with an accident. At the first instance, he did not open the gate. Thereafter on assurance given by appellant Kan Singh, her husband opened the gate. As soon as the gate was open, appellant Kan Singh dragged her husband out and absconding accused Bhim Singh mounted attack on his head by sword. Appellant Kan Singh and absconding accused Bhim Singh were accompanied with four other unnamed accused persons. Her son Mangilal intervened to rescue her husband. Appellants inflicted injuries to Mangilal as well. Accused persons dragged her husband Manak Ram in front of the quarter of Kan Singh. She further stated that apart from Kan Singh and Bhim Singh, other four accused persons were armed with swords. Her husband was crying but all the accused persons caused merciless injuries to him. Her husband received injuries on the head, neck and other vital parts of the body. One hand of the deceased was completely chopped off . He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. She covered her son and brought him inside the quarter. In the cross-examination, it was admitted by her that she did not disclose the names of assailants to Jagmala, Mobta. She explained that Jagmala, Mogta and Mana had not come out of the quarter and as such there was no question of disclosing the names of assailants to them. She stated that names of assailants were disclosed by her to Pokar Ram. She further stated that names of assailants were disclosed by her to the police. It was further stated by her that police did not inquire about the names of assailants during the night. She stated that names of assailants were disclosed by her to Pokar Ram. She further stated that names of assailants were disclosed by her to the police. It was further stated by her that police did not inquire about the names of assailants during the night. The main criticism against this witness is that she did not disclose the names of assailants at the first instance. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the statement of PW-8 Nand Singh, Jailor, Central Jail, Jodhpur. He has admitted in the cross-examination that in the morning of 17-1-1998 at about 8.00 a.m., he along with Shri B. K. Mathur, Jail Superintendent visited the site. In his presence, Jail Superintendent inquired from Pokar Ram about the names of assailants but he pleaded ignorance. It is submitted that if PW-2 Radha would have witnessed the incident, there was no reason not to disclose the names of assailants to her brother-in-law PW-3 Pokar Ram. In the same sequence, if PW-3 Pokar Ram would have known the names of assailants, he would not have pleaded ignorance about the assailants when he was inquired by the Jailor and the Jail Superintendent. We shall deal with this aspect of the case when we deal with the evidence of PW-3 Pokar Ram and other witnesses. Suffice it to say that presence of this witness on the place of incident is quite natural. Her statement also finds corroboration with the medical evidence and the statement of other witnesses. There is no reason to discredit the testimony of this witness. 10. PW-3 Pokar Ram is the brother of deceased Manak Ram. He was also undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the open air camp. He stated that on 16-1-1998, he was summoned by the Head Constable from his quarter. When he proceeded towards the quarter of his brother Manak Ram, he found that Manak Ram was lying unconscious outside the quarter of appellant Kan Singh. There was large number of wounds caused by sharp edged weapon on his body. His wife was weeping sitting beside him. It was disclosed by Mst. Radha that she along with her husband Manak Ram and son Mangilal was in quarter. Accused Kan Singh, Bhim Singh and four others called Manak Ram outside the quarter. She asked her husband not to go out but he opened the gate of quarter. He was caught by appellant Kan Singh. It was disclosed by Mst. Radha that she along with her husband Manak Ram and son Mangilal was in quarter. Accused Kan Singh, Bhim Singh and four others called Manak Ram outside the quarter. She asked her husband not to go out but he opened the gate of quarter. He was caught by appellant Kan Singh. Absconding accused Bhim Singh gave a sword blow. Other accused persons also gave sword blows. She further stated that on intervention by Mangilal, he was also seriously wounded by the assailants. Manak Ram was being dragged towards the quarter of Kan Singh. He also went inside the quarter of his deceased brother Manak Ram and found PW- 1 Mangilal in seriously wounded condition. He further stated that on 2-1-1998, absconding accused Bhim Singh along with two others visited the quarter of appellant Kan Singh. They again visited on 15-1-1998 i.e. a day before the incident. According to him, Bhim Singh was a resident of village Solankiya Ta and the family members of the deceased Inder Singh and Bhim Singh namely Nakhat Singh, Pratap Singh and Girdhari Singh were friendly to the absconding appellant Bhim Singh. He identified appellants in the identification parade as well as before the Court. In the cross-examination, he admitted that when he reached on the spot, Head-Constable Bal Singh, Mobata Ram, Mana Ram and Jagmal Singh were not present. He further asserted that before Mangilal was taken to the hospital, he had disclosed the names of assailants to the police. Except this aspect of the case, in the lengthy cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. PW-3 Pokar Ram is not an eye witness. However, his statement is relevant to the extent that eye-witness PW-2 Mst. Radha disclosed the names of assailants to him just after the incident. His statement also proves the fact that Bhim Singh and other assailants had visited open air camp on 2-1-1998 and 15-1-1998. 11. PW-4 Jabar Singh and PW-5 Jugal Kishore are the formal witnesses of recovery of incriminating articles. The evidence of PW-6 Dr. A. L. Chouhan and PW-7 Dr. N. S. Kothari has already been referred. 12. PW-8 Nand Singh was Jailor, Central Jail, Jodhpur at the relevant time. 11. PW-4 Jabar Singh and PW-5 Jugal Kishore are the formal witnesses of recovery of incriminating articles. The evidence of PW-6 Dr. A. L. Chouhan and PW-7 Dr. N. S. Kothari has already been referred. 12. PW-8 Nand Singh was Jailor, Central Jail, Jodhpur at the relevant time. He has stated that on 17-1-1998, he received a telephonic message from Head-Constable Bal Singh to the effect that convict Manak Ram has been wounded by some unknown assailants. He immediately informed to Shri B. K. Mathur, Jail Superintendent about the incident. Under the instructions of Jail Superintendent, he sent the police guard to Mandore Farm. He has also produced the jail warrant Exhibit P-28 of PW-3 Pokar Ram. He further proved the jail warrant Exhibit P-29 of appellant Kan Singh. He further stated that by the order of Inspector General of Police (Prisons) dated 8-7-1996, deceased Manak Ram was shifted to the open jail. He has also produced the document whereby PW-3 Pokar Ram and the appellant Kan Singh were transferred to the open air camp. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. PW-9 Nar Singh Ram, PW-iO Chhagna Ram and PW-12 Prithvi Raj are formal witnesses of memo of arrest and recovery. 13. PW-11 Girish Kumar is the owner of Shyam Hotel. He has produced the guest register Article-i. He has proved the entry of guest during the period 2-1-1998 to 4-1-1998. Names of Nakhat Singh, absconding accused Bhim Singh, Kirta Ram, appellant Gyan Chand and Nihal Chand finds place in the register. 14. PW-13 Virendra Singh, PW-14 Indra Singh, PW-15 Poonam Chand and PW-16 Ram Ratan Bhati are the formal police witnesses. They have proved the link evidence. PW-17 Vinod is photographer. PW-18 Hinimat Singh was A.S.I., Police Station, Mandore at the relevant time. He has stated that he reached to the place of occurrence at 1.45 a.m. along with Circle Inspector. He has stated that PW-3 Pokar Ram was found at the place of incident. His statement was recorded by the Circle Inspector. 15. PW-19 Madan Kumar was Head Constable at Police Station, Mandore at the relevant time. He is a formal witness. His evidence shall be referred while dealing with link evidence. PW-20 Nathu Lal is Proprietor of MIs. Laxmi Narayan Kirpan Works, Ada Bazar, Jodhpur. His statement was recorded by the Circle Inspector. 15. PW-19 Madan Kumar was Head Constable at Police Station, Mandore at the relevant time. He is a formal witness. His evidence shall be referred while dealing with link evidence. PW-20 Nathu Lal is Proprietor of MIs. Laxmi Narayan Kirpan Works, Ada Bazar, Jodhpur. He has stated that he runs a shop of selling weapons like sword with sheath, knife, chhuri etc. He stated that four to five persons visited his shop on 5-1-1998 with a view to purchase sword. He sold two swords with sheath. Purchasers paid the cost of sword i.e. Rs. 1,232/-. He issued a bill for the said amount to them. Bill Exhibit P-S 1 was issued in the name of absconding accused Nakhat Singh. He has identified the sword and sheath present in the Court which was sold by him to absconding accused Nakhat Singh and party. 16. PW-21 Jagdish Chandra was Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur City (East). He has given complete details of investigation including recovery of incriminating articles from the possession of accused persons. PW-22 Han Vallabh Khatri was Judicial Magistrate No. 6 at Jodhpur at the relevant time. He has proved identification proceedings of person and property conducted before him. PW-23 Chandan Singh was Incharge of Police Station Mandore. He recorded the statement of PW-3 Pokar Ram on the basis of which First Information Report was registered. 17. We may also deal with the evidence of witness produced by the defence. DW-i Mobta Ram is a life convict undergoing sentence. He was also in the open air camp living in the allotted quarter. He stated that on the date of Incident, DW-2 Jagmal Singh informed him that Head-Constable is to be called as marpeet has taken place at the quarter of Manak. Jagmal Singh also called Kan Singh from his quarter. Thereafter, he along with Jagmal Singh and Kan Singh went to the quarter of Manak Ram. They found the wife of Manak Ram sitting outside the quarter. They inquired from her the names of assailants but she did not disclose. She asked her to call PW-3 Pokar Ram. Pokar also asked her to disclose the names of assailants but she pleaded ignorance. He further stated that entire staff of the farm which included Mana Ram and Gordhan etc. were present on the spot. They remained at the place of occurrence throughout night. She asked her to call PW-3 Pokar Ram. Pokar also asked her to disclose the names of assailants but she pleaded ignorance. He further stated that entire staff of the farm which included Mana Ram and Gordhan etc. were present on the spot. They remained at the place of occurrence throughout night. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that there was none near the dead body except PW-3 Pokar Ram and the Head-Constable. 18. DW-2 Jagmal Singh is also a life convict undergoing sentence in the open air camp. He was also living in the allotted quarter. He has stated that wife of deceased Manak at about 10.30 p.m. on the date of incident, came to his quarter. She was weeping. Quarter of Manak was close to his quarter. He inquired about the identity of assailants but she did not disclose their names. She simply stated that Mangllal and his father were being assaulted. He found the dead body of Manak lying outside the quarter of Kan Singh. Thereafter, he went to Mobta Ram and Mana Ram and thereafter to the quarter of Kan Singh. Thereafter, he sent Mobta Ram and Mana Ram to call Head Constable. Head Constable inquired from the wife of deceased Manak about the names of assailants but she pleaded ignorance. After sometime PW-3 Pokar Ram also arrived at the place of incident. He has further stated that Pokar Ram Inquired the names of assailants from the wife of deceased Manak in his presence but she again pleaded ignorance. He further stated that Head Constable sent to the Police Station for lodging First Information Report. Police also arrived at the spot and inquired the names of assailants from the wife of deceased Manak but she again pleaded ignorance. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that wife of deceased Manak had disclosed the names of assailants as Kan Singh and 3-4 others. He also denied the suggestion that he was giving a false statement at the instance of appellant Kan Singh. 19. DW-6 Mana Ram was also in the open air camp undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment. He has stated that in the night of the date of incident, he heard the cries. DW-2 Jagmal Singh also came to his house and informed that marpeet has taken place at the quarter of Manak. 19. DW-6 Mana Ram was also in the open air camp undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment. He has stated that in the night of the date of incident, he heard the cries. DW-2 Jagmal Singh also came to his house and informed that marpeet has taken place at the quarter of Manak. Thereafter, he came out of the quarter and found the dead body of Manak Ram lying outside the quarter. He further stated that he along with Jagmal Singh went to the quarter of Kan Singh. They also inquired from the wife of deceased Manak Ram about the names of assailants. She stated that she could not identiir the assailants. As per her version they were muffled faces. Head Constable also inquired the names of assailants from the wife of deceased Manak Ram. For the whole night they could not know the name of persons who committed murder of Manak Ram. Wife of deceased Manak Ram did not disclose the names of assailants even before the police. In the cross-examination, he has stated that wife of Manak Ram was weeping inside the quarter. He admitted that when Head Constable Bal Singh arrived, wife of deceased Manak Ram was weeping inside the house. He denied the suggestion that he was giving a false statement at the instance of appellant Kan Singh. 20. DW-7 Bal Singh has stated that he was posted as Hawaldar in the open air camp at the relevant time. On the date of incident Mobta Ram and Kan Singh informed him that marpeet has taken place at the quarter of Manak. He reached on the place of occurrence along with them. He also inquired from the wife of deceased Manak the names of assailants, but she pleaded ignorance. Thereafter, he went to inform the authorities of Central Jail, Jodhpur and police. He did not give any report in writing. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not inquire about the incident from anybody at the place of incident. 21. On appreciation of evidence of three witnesses, it clearly appears that all the three witnesses have given three different versions as to how they came to know about the incident and reached at the place of occurrence. DW-1 Mobta Ram has stated that DW-2 Jagmal Singh came to his quarter and informed about the incident. 21. On appreciation of evidence of three witnesses, it clearly appears that all the three witnesses have given three different versions as to how they came to know about the incident and reached at the place of occurrence. DW-1 Mobta Ram has stated that DW-2 Jagmal Singh came to his quarter and informed about the incident. Thereafter, they went to the quarter of Head Constable Bal Singh. Wife of deceased Manak Ram was sitting near the dead body. On enquiry, she did not disclose the names of assailants. DW-2 Jagmal Singh has stated that wife of Manak Ram came to his quarter. She was weeping. She disclosed that her son Mangilal and husband has been assaulted. He came out and found the dead body of Manak lying outside the quarter. He further stated that he collected Mobta Ram and Kan Singh and then went to inform Head Constable Bal Singh. DW-6 Mana Ram has stated that he reached on the spot hearing the cries. He was also called by Jagmal Singh. He has stated that when they inquired from the wife of deceased Manak Ram about the identiir of assailants. She stated that they were muffled faces and as such, she could not identiir them. PW-2 Mst. Radha, wife of deceased Manak Ram stated that none of them approached to her after the occurrence. Therefore, there was no question of disclosing the names of assailants to Mobta Ram, Jagmal Singh and Bal Singh. On careful consideration of evidence, we are of the view that trial Court rightly disbelieved the testimony of defence witnesses namely DW-1 Mobta Ram, DW-2 Jagmal Singh, DW-6 Mana Ram and DW-7 Bal Singh. 22. Defence has also examined appellant DW-3 Kirta Ram himself , DW-4 Dalji and DW-5 Govind in support of plea of alibi. It is stated by DW-3 Kirta Ram that since 1981, he was residing at Delhi Darwaza outside Dudeshwar Road, Ahmedabad. He was working with Brahmani Winding Works at Mahalaxmi Complex, Ghee Kanta Road, Ahmedabad. He used to do the job of motor winding in his own shop. He further stated that on 16-1-1998, he had done the job for his customers namely Atul Bhai, Dalji and Ramesh Bhai. In support of it, he has produced bill book Article-E Exhibit A-7. It contains receipts at Serial Number 181 to 185. It is also stated that his neighbours were Govindji and Kamal Bhai. He further stated that on 16-1-1998, he had done the job for his customers namely Atul Bhai, Dalji and Ramesh Bhai. In support of it, he has produced bill book Article-E Exhibit A-7. It contains receipts at Serial Number 181 to 185. It is also stated that his neighbours were Govindji and Kamal Bhai. He was arrested on 4-2-1998 from the shop at Ahmedabad. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he does not remember the amount charged from the customers for motor repairing. He also admitted that he is original resident of village Chami Bhandu,