JUDGMENT PRITAM PAL, J. 1. Appellants - Surinder Singh, Resham Singh and Jasmail Singh have filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 17.4.2000 whereby they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one year each. 2. In nut-shell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus: 3. Diwan Chand (57 years) (since deceased), father of Pardeep Kumar, Complainant (PW-8) had been serving as a Chief Pharmacist in the Community Health Centre of Village Ferozeshah for the last five years. Smt. Sohni Devi, wife of said Diwan Chand, was also serving as a Ward-servant in the same Health Centre. They both were residing in the premises of the hospital. On 24.10.1997, at about 5.00 PM, Pardeep Kumar, complainant, (PW- 8), who was residing at Abohar and running there his shop of Commission Agent, had come to meet his parents at village Ferozeshah. On the same evening of 24.10.1997, Diwan Chand, who is father of complainant Pardeep Kumar, had gone to a village on his cycle to give some medicines to his known patients as per his usual practice. Sometime, he also used to stay-back in the night- time. 4. It was at about 10.00 PM on 24.10.1997 that complainant Pardeep Kumar along with his mother went asleep. On the next morning, he woke up and found that the bicycle of his father was lying parked inside the hospital near the gate and his bag of medicines was also hanging at the handle of the cycle. Some medicines were also there in the bag. Besides that, one letter alleged to have been written in Punjabi language by one Shamsher Singh Ahluwalia was also found in the bag. In the letter, it was written that Diwan Chand had been kidnapped and if they wanted him alive, then a sum of Rs. 4.00 lacs be brought at Dhindsa Railway station on Saturday at 8.00 PM. Further, it was also written therein that in case, the aforesaid ransom was not paid by Ist November, then his (Diwan Chand’s) dead-body would be found lying at Bus-Stand of Ratta Khera. Thereafter, Pardeep Kumar, in the company of Dr. 4.00 lacs be brought at Dhindsa Railway station on Saturday at 8.00 PM. Further, it was also written therein that in case, the aforesaid ransom was not paid by Ist November, then his (Diwan Chand’s) dead-body would be found lying at Bus-Stand of Ratta Khera. Thereafter, Pardeep Kumar, in the company of Dr. Iqbal Singh, Community Health Centre, Ferozeshah, left for the Police Station. In the way, they met SI/SHO Balbir Singh at Bust Stand, Ferozeshah. There, Pardeep Kumar (complainant) got recorded his statement, Ex. P11, in the above narration of the facts at about 11.30 AM on 25-10-1997. Then, Sh. Balbir Singh made his endorsement Ex. P11/A on the statement and sent the same to Police Station, Ghall Khurd for registration of a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, a formal FIR Ex. P11 was recorded by MHC Atma Singh at 11.50 AM on 25.10.1997. 5. It was on 27.10.1997 that SI Balbir Singh made a general search of the huts in the field and ultimately the dead-body of Diwan Chand was found lying in the kup (a store of wheat fodder), situated in the fields of Pirthi Singh father of appellant-Resham Singh. The dead-body was got identified by Pardeep Kumar, complainant and Surinder Kumar vide memo Ex. P13. One shoe of Gurgabi Ex.MO-13 of left foot of appellant Jasmail Singh was also recovered from near the dead-body and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P24. SI Balbir Singh, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case, also prepared inquest report Ex. P3. He then sent the dead-body of Dewan Chand to Civil Hospital, Forezepur for post-mortem examination through SI Balwinder Singh and Constable Ajit Singh. A rough site-plan Ex. P25 of the place of recovery of the dead-body was also prepared at the spot. After post-mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased and two vials were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. P7. Prior to that, on 25.10.1997, SI Balbir Singh took into possession the bicycle Ex. MO-16 and bag Ex. MO-15 of the deceased vide recovery memo Ex. P12. On 28.10.1997,accused- appelants Surinder Singh and Jasmail Singh were produced before SI Balbir Singh by Shabegh Singh, Sarpanch, whereas, accused- appellant Resham Singh was also produced by one Tarlok Singh. 6. On 29.10.1997, SI Balbir Singh interrogated appellant Surinder Singh, who made his disclosure statement Ex. MO-16 and bag Ex. MO-15 of the deceased vide recovery memo Ex. P12. On 28.10.1997,accused- appelants Surinder Singh and Jasmail Singh were produced before SI Balbir Singh by Shabegh Singh, Sarpanch, whereas, accused- appellant Resham Singh was also produced by one Tarlok Singh. 6. On 29.10.1997, SI Balbir Singh interrogated appellant Surinder Singh, who made his disclosure statement Ex. P22 and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered one blood-stained kirch (Ex.MO-1) (small kirpan/sword), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P17, which was attested by ASI Sardul Singh and Satish Kumar. On 1.11.1997, during interrogation, appellant Jasmail Singh made his disclosure statement Ex.P26 in pursuance of which, he got recovered right foot shoe of Gurgabi Ex.MO-11 vide recovery memo Ex. P18, attested by ASI Balwinder Singh and Sukhjit Singh. On the same day SI Balbir Singh also interrogated appellant Resham Singh, who made his disclosure statement Ex.P27, in pursuance thereof, he got recovered a Diary Ex.MO-12, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P19, attested by Sukhjit Singh and ASI Balwinder Singh. 7. All the three appellants had also made extra-judicial confession before Shabegh Singh, Sarpanch and Tarlok Singh that they had kidnapped Diwan Chand and then killed him as the amount of ransom was not paid. SI Balbir Singh then sent MHC Atma Singh with the sealed parcels of the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and Chemical Examiner, Patiala. 8. After completion of the formal investigation of the case and receipt of the reports Ex.31, Ex. P32 and P33 from the aforesaid agencies, the appellants were challaned for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were charge-sheeted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 9.2.1998 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 16 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. K.K. Khatri, District Training Officer, Ferozepur, who conducted the Post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Dewan Chand vide his report Ex. P1; PW-2 Daya Ram, Ahlmad, he proved the order. Ex. P4, passed by JMIC, Ferozepur. He also proved statement Ex. P4/A of appellant Surinder Singh, Ex.P4/B of appellant Resham Singh and P4/C of Jasmail Singh; PW-3 Jagdev Singh, he proved the scaled site-plan (Ex.P5) of the place from where the dead-body was recovered; PW-4 Constable Kewal Singh, he proved his affidavit Ex. Ex. P4, passed by JMIC, Ferozepur. He also proved statement Ex. P4/A of appellant Surinder Singh, Ex.P4/B of appellant Resham Singh and P4/C of Jasmail Singh; PW-3 Jagdev Singh, he proved the scaled site-plan (Ex.P5) of the place from where the dead-body was recovered; PW-4 Constable Kewal Singh, he proved his affidavit Ex. P6; PW-5 ASI Pritam Singh, he is a witness to the recovery memo Ex. P7; PW-6 HC Atma Singh, he is a witness of formal nature and proved his affidavit Ex.P8; PW-7 Paramjit Singh, he placed his affidavit Ex. P9 on the file to prove the link evidence, PW-8 Pardeep Kumar, he is complainant in this case; PW-9 Satish Kumar, he is a witness to the recovery memo Ex. P17 to kirch; PW-10 Dinesh Kuimar Sharma, Photographer, he proved the negatives Ex. MO-2 to MO-4 and positives thereof Ex. MO-5 to MO-10; PW-11 Sukhjit Singh, he is a witness to the recovery memo Ex. P19, vide which dairy was taken into possession; PW-12 Const. Nachhatar Singh, he proved his affidavit Ex. P20; PW-13 Const. Sukhdev Singh, he also placed his affidavit Ex. P21 on the file; PW-14 ASI Palwinder Singh, he is also the Investigating Officer in this case; PW-15 ASI Sardool Singh, he also proved the various documents prepared by SI Balbir Singh, who was the main Investigating Officer in this case and could not be examined as he had gone aboard. In his statement, he also proved the statements Ex. P11 of Pardeep Kumar, complainant, endorsement thereon Ex. P11/A, FIR Ex. P11/B and identification memo Ex. P13. In this case, PWs Tarlok Singh, Shabegh Singh and Darshan Singh were given-up as having been won- over. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied in toto the incriminating evidence which appeared against them. In their defence, they led no evidence. 11. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal. 12. We have heard Shri H.S. Bhullar, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri A.S. Virk, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State of Punjab and have carefully gone through the record with their assistance. 13. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal. 12. We have heard Shri H.S. Bhullar, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri A.S. Virk, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State of Punjab and have carefully gone through the record with their assistance. 13. At the outset of his arguments, Mr. Bhullar has submitted that in this case, learned trial Court has held the appellants guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which does not complete the chain of circumstances, so as to connect them (appellants) with the commission of crime. He then assailed the recovery of three items i.e. kirch (small) kirpan/sword) (Ex.MO- 1); right foot shoe (Ex. MO-11) and diary (Ex. MO-12). According to him, the aforesaid three items alleged to have been recovered from the appellants have been falsely fastened upon them. In this regard he also read-out the disclosure statements, Ex. P22 of Surinder Singh; Ex. P26 of Jasmail Singh and Ex. P27 of Resham Singh and then pointed out some contradictions which had occurred in the statements of witnesses to the aforesaid disclosure statements. At the same time, he also argued that some independent witnesses were available while effecting the aforesaid recoveries at the instances of the appellants, but none of them was associated during the investigation of this case. Not only, that, three witnesses, namely Shabegh Singh, Tarlok Singh, who were the witnesses to the extra-judicial confession, and had produced the appellants before the Police Darshan Singh, who is also a witness to the last seen, were not examined by the prosecution. On that count, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. Further, it was also argued by learned counsel for the appellants that medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case, in that, PW-1 Dr. K.K. Khatri, who proved the post-mortem report Ex. P1 has stated that time elapsed between the death and post-mortem examination was between 48-72 hours. According to the prosecution story, the occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 24th and 25th October, 1997, whereas, the post-mortem was conducted on 27.10.1997 at 2.10 PM. At the fag end of his arguments, it was also argued that in this case, SI Balbir Singh, who was the main Investigating Officer and is stated to be alive, has not been examined. 14. At the fag end of his arguments, it was also argued that in this case, SI Balbir Singh, who was the main Investigating Officer and is stated to be alive, has not been examined. 14. After putting-fourth the aforesaid points of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to make a complete chain of facts and circumstances to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt before the learned trial Court, but in view of the aforesaid circumstances and the infirmities, pointed out above, learned counsel for the appellants submitted for the acquittal of the appellants. 15. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Virk, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants. To begin with, he argued that in this case, the police had conducted a very fair investigation and the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against all the three appellants with complete chain of facts and circumstances, which go a long- way to connect them with the commission of crime. He then submitted that in this case, no doubt, PWs Shabegh Singh, Tarlok Singh were witnesses to the extra-judicial confession and Darshan Singh who had last seen the appellants with the victim of this case, were not examined as they had been won-over by the appellants, but at the same time, he made a reference to the disclosure statements, recoveries got effected in pursuance thereof and the medical evidence consisted in the statement of PW-1, Dr. K.K. Khatri. He then contended that the circumstances brought on the file amply prove that it was the appellants and none-else, who had committed the murder of Dewan Chand (deceased), Chief Pharmacist, employed in the Community Health Centre of their village Ferozeshah for ransom. At the last leg of his arguments, Mr. Virk made reference to the order Ex. P4 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, wherein, the appellants had refused to give their specimen on hand- writings and long-fair, which were required for comparison wit ransom note (Ex.P10), and hair recovered from the nails of the deceased. He then contended that in view of their said refusal, an adverse inference was rightly drawn against the appellants by the learned trial Court. At the end, he prayed for the dismissal of this appeal. 16. He then contended that in view of their said refusal, an adverse inference was rightly drawn against the appellants by the learned trial Court. At the end, he prayed for the dismissal of this appeal. 16. We have given out holistic view to the above arguments raised on behalf of the parties and find that the points raised on behalf of the appellants are devoid of merits for the reasons given hereinafter. 17. We are fully conscious that circumstantial evidence is a very weak type of evidence, but at the same time, if a complete chain is made out by such circumstances to connect the accused with the commission of crime, then the accused persons can safely be held guilty for the offence. Here, in the instant case, it is evident from the statement of PW-1 Dr. K.K. Khatri, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased, that hair were found in the nails of the finger of Diwan Chand (deceased) which were taken into possession in a vial for comparison with the hair of the accused-persons. For that, all the three appellants were produced before the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate on 6.12.1997. Their statements Ex. P4/A of appellant Surinder Singh; P4/B of Resham Singh and P4/C of Jasmail Singh were recorded, wherein, they, all the three, had refused to give the sample of their respective hair. Not only that, they also refused to give specimen of hand-writing for the comparison of the writing contained in the ransom note, Ex. P10. In this regard, a detailed order (Ex.P4) of the Judicial Magistrate is there on the file. In this view of the matter, an adverse inference is drawn against all of them. It is further well established on the file that appellant Surinder Singh was arrested in this case on 29.10.1997. He was produced by Sarpanch Shabegh Singh (since given up as having been won- over). During interrogation, he made his disclosure statement, Ex. P22 in the presence of PW-15 ASI Sardool Singh and ASI Raj Singh. In pursuance of his statement, he got recovered weapon of offence i.e., kirch (small sword) (Ex. MO-1), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P17. During interrogation, he made his disclosure statement, Ex. P22 in the presence of PW-15 ASI Sardool Singh and ASI Raj Singh. In pursuance of his statement, he got recovered weapon of offence i.e., kirch (small sword) (Ex. MO-1), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P17. Similarly, appellant Resham Singh, who was also produced by PW Tarlok Singh (since given up as having been won-over) was interrogated by SI Balbir Singh in the presence of PW-16 ASI Balwinder Singh and PW-11 Sukhjit Singh. He made his disclosure statement Ex. P27 regarding concealment of diary (Ex. MO-12) from which a page was torn-out and ransom note, Ex. P10 was written. The said diary was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P19, which was duly attested by the aforesaid witnesses. Likewise, appellant Jasmail Singh was arrested in this case on 28.10.1997. He was also produced by Shabegh Singh, Sarpanch and during his interrogation, he also made his disclosure statement Ex. P26 regarding the concealment of his right foot-shoe Ex. MO-11, in pursuance of his said statement he got recovered the shoe and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P18. His disclosure statement is well proved on the file by PW-16 ASI Balwinder Singh and PW-11 Sukhjit Singh. 18. Before we proceed further, it is also pertinent to mention here that as per FSL report Ex. P33, the tear pattern and the printed matter on the front and back-side of the ransom note (Ex.P10) tallied with the paper-sheet of the diary (Ex, MO- 12). Further according to FSL the right foot shoe/Gurgabi (E. MO13) stated to have been recovered from the scene of crime. Lastly, as per another FSL report Ex. P32, the right foot shoe/Gurgabi (Ex. MO-11), recovered from appellant Jasmail Singh, was also founjd to have made a pair of foot-wear with another left foot shoe (Ex. MO-13) stated to have been recovered from the scene of crime. Lastly, as per another FSL report Ex. P31, kirch (small kirpan/sword), weapon of offence in this case, was also found to have stained with human blood. At this place, it is also pertinent to mention that PW-1, Dr. K.K. Khatri has categorically opined that the injuries on the chest and abdomen of the deceased could be caused by aforesaid kirch (Ex. MO-1). 19. P31, kirch (small kirpan/sword), weapon of offence in this case, was also found to have stained with human blood. At this place, it is also pertinent to mention that PW-1, Dr. K.K. Khatri has categorically opined that the injuries on the chest and abdomen of the deceased could be caused by aforesaid kirch (Ex. MO-1). 19. Now, coming to the another noticeable points of arguments regarding non-joining the independent witnesses and some contradictions occurred in the statements of PW-8 complainant Pardeep Kumar and PW-9 Satish Kumar, who is stated to be the cousin of the complainant, in this regard, it is suffice to say that now-a-days, respectables, co-villagers and even the next- door neighbours of the victim are reluctant to join the investigation of any crime, by the police to avoid any future inconvenience. As stated in the earlier part of the judgment, here in this case also, three respectables, namely, Shabegh Singh, Sarpanch, Tirlok Singh and Darshan Singh were associated as prosecution witnesses, but they are reported to have been given-up by the Pubic Prosecutor before the learned trial Court as having been won-over. Be that as it may, after taking great caution in the matter, the testimony of PW-8 Pardeep Kumar (complainant) and PW-9 Satish Kumar (cousin of the complainant) cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their being close- relatives of the deceased inasmuch as their respective statements are consistent on all the material point put-forth by other relevant witnesses, namely, PW-11 Sukhjit Singh, PW-15 ASI Sardool Singh and PW-16 ASI Balwinder Singh, in whose presence the appellants had made their respective disclosure statements. It is also to add here that there are some minor contradictions occurred in the statements of aforesaid material witnesses, but they do not go to the root of this case. Moreover, the material witnesses in this case were examined after about more than two years of the occurrence. Hence, such minor contradictions pertaining to distance and time etc are bound to occur with the passage of time. Therefore, no significance can be attached to such minor contradictions/lapses, especially, when other circumstances, as discussed above, go a long-way to connect the accused-appellants with the commission of crime of this case. 21. Hence, such minor contradictions pertaining to distance and time etc are bound to occur with the passage of time. Therefore, no significance can be attached to such minor contradictions/lapses, especially, when other circumstances, as discussed above, go a long-way to connect the accused-appellants with the commission of crime of this case. 21. Now, turning to other limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellants pertaining to the time elapsed between the death and the post-mortem examinations, this point also fails to carry any conviction with us inasmuch as PW-1 Dr. K.K. Khatri categorically stated that he had conducted autopsy on the dead- body of Diwan Chand on 27.10.1997 at 2.10 PM. According to the prosecution case, the death of victim Diwan Chand had occurred on the night intervening 24th and 25th October, 1997. Thus, it is well established that time of about 60 hours had elapsed between the death and the post-mortem examination of the deceased. 22. Now, coming to the last contention raised on behalf of the appellants regarding non-examination of SI Balbir Singh, who was the main Investigating Officer in this case, in this regard, it is suffice to mention that during the trial of this case, SI Balbir Singh was found to have gone abroad (U.K.). Hence, he could not be examined. He is one of the Investigating Officers in this case. It is evident from the file that the part of his investigation has been well-proved in the statements of other witnesses, namely, PW-14 ASI Palwinder Singh, PW-15 ASI Sardool Singh and PW-16 ASI Balwinder Singh. In this view of the matter, non-examination of this Investigating Officer cannot be termed as fatal to the prosecution case. 23. Taking into consideration the recoveries got effected in pursuance to the respective disclosure statements of the appellants, medical evidence, FSL reports Ex. P31, 32 and P33 and the order (Ex.P4) of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur regarding refusal of the appellants to give their specimen of hand-writing and their hair, which all inspire confidence, we have no hesitation to hold that it were the appellants and none else, who had committed the murder of Diwan Chand (deceased). 24. In the result, we find no infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 24. In the result, we find no infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellants, if on bail, he taken into custody to serve-out the remaining part of their sentence.