Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. Four appellants, namely, Sudhir, Anupam alias Anup, Ravl Kant and Raj Kumar have brought their respective aforementioned appeals against judgment dated 31-8-2004 and order dated 2-9-2004 whereby they were convicted under Sections 392/302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further RI for a period of two months. However, all the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals arise out of one and the same judgment and order passed in Session Case No. RBT-128/ 23-8-2002/4-8-2000, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. In nut-shell, facts culminating to the commencement of the aforementioned appeals may be recapitulated thus: On 30-4-1989, at about 1:15 p.m., vehicle bearing No. HR 30-A-3502, an Armada make jeep of one Rajinder, son of Mool Chand was hired by Deepak Goyal (22 years), since deceased, for going to State Bank of India, Palwal as he had to withdraw a sum of Rs. 5.95.000.00 . On the said jeep, Dhani alias Dhani Ram (P.W. 4), a complainant in this case, was the driver. After the withdrawal of the said amount, Deepak sat on the front seat while going back to his village Hassanpur. The money bag was kept by him in between his feet. When they reached in the area of village Pingod, a blue maruti car at once crossed their jeep. A signal was given to stop the jeep. Then the said maruti car was stopped in front of the aforesaid jeep. Three young boys came out of the car, one of them fired a shot from his pistol which hit on the forehead of Deepak Goyal, who was sitting on the front seat in the jeep and thereafter the bag containing money was picked up. Thereafter, the car was turned back and all the three persons drove-away with the robbed money bag. Thereafter, the car was turned back and all the three persons drove-away with the robbed money bag. After the said occurrence, Dhani Ram, (complainant), driver of the j eep, went to Village Hassanpur and there he narrated the story to Jagdish, father of Deepak Goyal. Then the injured was taken to hospital of village Hassanpur. There, first aid was given to him. After that, he was referred to Escorts Hospital, Faridabad. On reaching there, he was declared brought-dead by the doctor. Ultimately, they all reached Civil Hospital, Palwal and there P.W. 12 SI Magan Singh, on receipt of wire-less message about the occurrence, reached the hospital and there he recorded the statement, Ex. PA, of Dhani Ram (P.W. 4), in the above narration of facts, at 4.00 p.m. on 30-4-1999, SI Magan Singh made his endorsement Ex. PA/1 on the statement of complainant Dhani Ram and then sent the same to the police station, upon which, formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded under Sections 302/392 of the Indian Penal Code and 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act by MHC Naseer Ahmad (P.W. 1) in Police Station, Sadar, Palwal at 4.10 p.m. SI Magan Singh (P.W. 12) SHO, who was the Investigating Officer in this case, prepared inquest report Ex. PD. He then also took into possession jeep, handkerchief, chappal of black colour and blanket lying in the said jeep, vide recovery memo Ex. PI. After that, he left for the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan Ex. PJ with correct marginal notes in his hand. On the same day, he also recorded the statements of driver Dhani Ram and Sumer Singh under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Clothes of the deceased, handed over by Constable Dalbir Singh, were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB, Dhani Ram, complainant, was also arrested by him in this case, but, later on he was discharged as he was found innocent. 4. It was on 28-10-1999 that all the four accused-appellants were arrested by ASI Ram Kumar (P.W. 8) of Delhi Police in another case bearing FIR No. 536/99 registered at Police Station, Timarpur (Delhi) under Sections 186/353/506/307/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, they were taken to Operation Cell and interrogated by P.W. 8 in the presence of HC Ravinder Kumar (P.W. 5). Thereafter, they were taken to Operation Cell and interrogated by P.W. 8 in the presence of HC Ravinder Kumar (P.W. 5). There, all the four accused had made separate disclosure statements before ASI Ram Kumar. First of all, appellant Sudhir was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement that about 5-6 months back, according to their plan formulated by appel-lant-Ravi Kant, they had followed a businessman from State Bank, Palwal who was sitting in Armada jeep. At that time, all of them were in a blue coloured rnaruti car. When Armada jeep had gone 15-16 kms ahead of Palwal and was near village Pingod, they had stopped their car in front of the said jeep. At that time, their car was being driven by appellant Ravi Kant. It was also disclosed that he (Sudhir), Raj Kumar and Anupam had got down from the car. First of all, Sudhir had gone to the trader and asked him to hand-over the bag containing the money. When the trader had refused to hand over the bag, then he (Sudhir) fired at him with a country-made pistol, which hit near his ear-pit. After the occurrence, they had threatened the driver of the jeep and snatched the keys of his vehicle. It was further disclosed that after the said occurrence, all the four accused had gone away by driving the car, after looting a sum of Rs. 5.95.000.00 contained in a bag. Further it was also disclosed that at the time of occurrence, their car was bearing a fake registration number viz. HR-27-D-0786. The said car was ultimately abandoned at Sohna-Gurgaon road. It was then also disclosed that some of the robbed money had been spent and the remaining amount was lying with him and the same could be got recovered. Appellant, Sudhir also disclosed that he could also make "Nishandehi" of the place of occurrence and that he could also get recovered the country-made pistol and the car used in the aforesaid operation. A photocopy of his this disclosure statement is Mark-A on the file, as the original thereof was stated to have been tagged in another file of aforesaid case bearing FIR No. 536/ 99 registered against them in Police Station, Timarpur (Delhi). Similarly, the other appellants namely, Anupam, Ravi Kant and Raj Kumar made disclosure statements Mark-B, Mark-C and Mark-D, respectively. 5. Similarly, the other appellants namely, Anupam, Ravi Kant and Raj Kumar made disclosure statements Mark-B, Mark-C and Mark-D, respectively. 5. On the same day, SI Nasib Singh in the presence of Islamudin, a public witness got recovered a country-made pistol and three cartridges from appellant Ravi Kant and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Mark-E, the original of which was also stated to have been tagged with the file of aforesaid another case registered at Delhi against them. 6. On 29-10-1999, Inspector Ranjit Singh (P.W. 17) CIA staff, Palwal on receipt of message from D.G.P. Delhi, reached there and it was transpired that all the four accused-appellants were in the custody of the Delhi Police in some other case. So, after their production in the Tis Hazari Courts at Delhi, he had formally arrested them and took transit remand from the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. All the four accused were kept in muffled faces. On 1-11-1999, they all were brought in muffled faces before Deepak Gupta (P.W. 18), the then SDJM, Palwal for seeking their consent to join in their test Identification Parade, but they all refused to join the same. In that behalf their statement Ex. PN/1 was also recorded by the SDJM. After that, the appellants were taken out of the police lock up on 2-11-1999 and all of them were interrogated and thereupon they disclosed that they had already made disclosure statements at Delhi about the case in hand. So, Inspector Ranjit Singh (P.W. 17) then went to Delhi and got confirmed about recording of their disclosure statements from ASI Ram Kumar (P.W. 8) and HC Ravinder Kumar (P.W. 5). In that behalf, their statements were also recorded by him. On their interrogation and in pursuance of their disclosure statements, made before the Delhi Police, accused-appellant Anupam got recovered two packets of currency notes for a sum of Rs. 10.000.00 each and the same were taken into possession vide recoveiy memo Ex. PL. Similarly, accused-appellant Sudhir also got recovered a sum of Rs. 30.000.00 and the same were taken into possession vide recoveiy memo Ex. PL/1. Then accused-appellant Ravi Kant got recovered a sum of Rs. 30.000.00 contained in three packets and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL/2. Likewise, accused-appellant Raj Kumar also got recovered Rs. PL. Similarly, accused-appellant Sudhir also got recovered a sum of Rs. 30.000.00 and the same were taken into possession vide recoveiy memo Ex. PL/1. Then accused-appellant Ravi Kant got recovered a sum of Rs. 30.000.00 contained in three packets and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL/2. Likewise, accused-appellant Raj Kumar also got recovered Rs. 5000.00 and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL/3. Thus, in all, they got recovered a total amount of Rs. 85,000.00 . All the packets/wads, containing the aforesaid currency notes were having the stamps of State Bank of India. Thereafter, all the accused-appellants had also taken the police to the place where said Maruti car was abandoned after the commission of crime. The fard "Nishandehi" is Ex. PN and site plan of recovery is Ex. PO/ 4. Ultimately, the car was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN/1 and in that behalf, statements of HC Ravish Chand (P.W. 15) and C. Taken Lal (P.W. 16) etc. were also recorded. Then on 5-11-1999 all the four accused appellants were also taken to the place of occurrence from where they had robbed Deepak Goyal (deceased) after shooting him in pursuance of Fard Nishandehi Ex. PH. In that behalf, a site plan Ex. PH/1 was also prepared at the spot. 7. After completion of the formal investigation of the case and recording statement of P.C. Batra, Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Palwal, in respect of the seal of the bank on the packets of currency notes, all the four accused-appellants were challenged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/392/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The appellants were charge-sheeted in his case under Sections 302/392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 9-2-2001 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Naseer Ahmed, MHC, he recorded FIR Ex. PA/2, P.W. 2 HC Dalbir Singh, he is a witness to recovery memo Ex. PB whereby clothes of the deceased were taken into possession; P.W. 3 Dr. Jagmohan Mittal, he proved post-mortem report Ex. 9. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Naseer Ahmed, MHC, he recorded FIR Ex. PA/2, P.W. 2 HC Dalbir Singh, he is a witness to recovery memo Ex. PB whereby clothes of the deceased were taken into possession; P.W. 3 Dr. Jagmohan Mittal, he proved post-mortem report Ex. PC, P.W. 4 Dhani Ram, driver and a complainant in this case, P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar of Delhi Police, in his presence, the appellants were arrested on 28-10-1999 in another case bearing FIR No. 536/99 registered at Delhi, P.W. 6 has been inadvertently recorded as P.W. 7, P.W. 7 HC Yashbir Singh, he is a witness to the Nishandehi Ex. P.M. and recovery memo of car Ex. P.M. 1; P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar of Delhi Police. In his presence, disclosure statements mark A to "D" were made by the appellants; P.W. 9 HC Ashok Kumar of Delhi Police, he proved FIR No. 536/99 (Ex.PF), P.W. 10 MHC Sujan Singh. The car was deposited with him on 1-5-1999 by P.W. 7 HC Yashbir Singh, P.W. 11 ASI Som Dutt, he is a witness to the Nishandehi, Ex. PH; P.W. 12 SI/SHO Magan Singh, he investigated the case at the initial stage, P.W. 13 Manoj Kumar, Halwa Patwari, he proved the scaled site Ex. PK of the place of occurrence, P.W. 14 Parkash Chand, photographer, he proved photographs Ex. P/l to P/4 and negatives thereof, Ex. P/5 to P/ 8, P.W. 15 HC Ravish Chand, he is a witness to the recovery of packets containing currency notes vide recovery memo Exs. PL, PL/1, PL/2 and PL/3; P.W. 16 Constable Taken Lal, he is a witnes to the recovery memos, Ex. PL, PL/1, PL/2 and PL/3, P.W. 17 Inspector Ranjit Singh, he investigated the case at the later stage. P.W. 18 Deepak Gupta, the then SDJM, in his presence all the four accused-appellants had refused to join the identification parade, P.W. 19 P. C. Batra, Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Palwal, he proved the seals of the bank over the packets of currency notes got recovered from the accused-appellants. P.W. 20 Sumer Singh, Sarpanch, he identified the dead-body and produced the Armada jeep before the police. 10. While recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. P.W. 20 Sumer Singh, Sarpanch, he identified the dead-body and produced the Armada jeep before the police. 10. While recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. When they were called upon to enter on their defence, they chose in the negative. 11. Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the entire evidence and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated in the opening part of the judgment. This is how, feeling aggrieved, they have come-up in these appeals. 12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully with their assistance. 13. At the very outset of his arguments, Mr. R. S. Ghai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellants, namely, Anup and Raj Kumar submitted that in the instant case, there is neither direct nor any indirect or circumstantial evidence which could connect any of the appellants with the commission of crime of this case. There was only one eye witness to the occurrence i.e. P.W. 4 Dhani Ram, who has failed to identify the appellants before the learned trial Court. He further vehemently argued that occurrence of his case is dated 30-4-1999, whereas the appellants were arrested in some other case at Delhi on 28-10-1999 i.e. after about six months of the occurrence. Thereafter, their disclosure statements mark A to D were recorded by the Delhi Police in other case bearing FIR No. 536 of 1999 (Ex. PF) registered under Section 307 etc. of IPC by P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar and in the said disclosure statements, the appellants were stated to have confessed about the manner in which the offence of the case in hand was committed by them. He then argued that the aforesaid disclosure statements mark A to D stated to have been made by the appellants before the Delhi Police, are not admissible in evidence inasmuch as these are photostat copies and have not been got. exhibited by bringing the original one before the learned trial Court. At the same time, it was also argued that even otherwise, in the said disclosure statements, the appellants are stated to have confessed their guilt before the police, so the same cannot be read into evidence against any of the appellants. exhibited by bringing the original one before the learned trial Court. At the same time, it was also argued that even otherwise, in the said disclosure statements, the appellants are stated to have confessed their guilt before the police, so the same cannot be read into evidence against any of the appellants. In order to support his aforesaid points of arguments, reliance was also placed on Pulukuri Kotlaya V/s. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 : 1947 (48) Cri LJ 533; Pandurang Kalu Patti V/s. State of Maharashtra 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 499 : 2002 Gri LJ 1007 and Salim Akhtar alias Mota V/s. State of U. P. . 14. At the second place, Mr. Ghai argued that in this case, link evidence with regard to withdrawal of amount of Rs. 5,95.000.00 from State Bank of India, Palwal on the date of occurrence by deceased Deepak Goyal, is also missing, inasmuch as in that behalf, no evidence has been led by the prosecution. At the fag end of his arguments, Mr. Ghai submitted that the prosecution has also failed to recover and produce the blue Maruti Car stated to have been used by the appellants at the time of committing the crime of this case. Not only that the ownership of the said car has also not been proved before the learned trial Court and as such, link evidence which could connect the appellants with the commission of this case, is again missing. 15. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva and Mr. B.S. Walia, arnicus curiae learned Counsel appearing on behalf of other appellants namely, Ravl Kant and Sudhir Kumar also adopted and supported the aforesaid points of arguments raised by Mr. Ghai and they all contended for acquittal of all the appellants. 16. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. A.G. appearing on behalf of the V/s. State of Haryana, submitted that the appellants in this case are, in fact, professional and habitual criminals and they are operating in the State of U.P., Delhi and Haryana. In that behalf, he also made reference about the other cases registered against them vide FIR No. 95 of 2001, under Sections 363 and 471 of IPC at Police Station, Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and FIR No. 536 of 1999, registered under Section. 307 of IPC etc. In that behalf, he also made reference about the other cases registered against them vide FIR No. 95 of 2001, under Sections 363 and 471 of IPC at Police Station, Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and FIR No. 536 of 1999, registered under Section. 307 of IPC etc. at Police Station, Timarpur, Delhi, as mentioned in the interim orders dated 24-7-2002 and 29-1-2003 passed by the learned trial Court, At the same time, it was also argued that as is apparent from the order dated 24-7-2002, two of the appellants, namely, Ravi Kant and Sudhir, who had fired upon Deepak Goyal deceased were declared proclaimed offenders in this case and they could be arrested after about two years and in fact, while absconding away, they had threatened P.W. 4 Dhani Ram, an eye-witness to the occurrence, that is why, he refused to identify any of the appellants before the learned trial Court. However, he has corroborated all the contents of his statements Ex. PA, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded promptly. He further submitted that the disclosure statements mark A to D though not exhibited, but they stand duly proved on the file. In that behalf, he submitted that in fact, these disclosure statements were recorded by P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar of Delhi Police in the presence of P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar of Delhi Police on 29-10-1999. By that time, Delhi Police had no knowledge about the occurrence of this case, which was registered in Police Station, Palwal (Haryana) and they could know only during the interrogation made by the police in case bearing FIR No. 536 of 1999 (aforesaid). It was, thereafter, that a wireless message was sent to Haryana Police on 29-10-1999 regarding the arrest of the appellants at Delhi. Ultimately, on receipt of wireless message, P.W. 17 Ran)it Singh Inspector, CIA, Staff, Palwal, contacted Delhi Police and obtained the custody of the appellants as well as the aforesaid photostat copies of the disclosure statements mark A to D, on the basis of which currency notes to the tune of Rs. 85.000.00 were got recovered by the appellants. He further argued that in this case, the police also got prepared Fard Nishandehi Ex. PH of the place of occurrence and Fard Nishandehi Ex. PN of the place where they had abandoned the blue colour Maruti Car after commission of the offence. 85.000.00 were got recovered by the appellants. He further argued that in this case, the police also got prepared Fard Nishandehi Ex. PH of the place of occurrence and Fard Nishandehi Ex. PN of the place where they had abandoned the blue colour Maruti Car after commission of the offence. While concluding his arguments, learned Counsel also submitted that though the confessions made by the appellants before the police in respect of making the aforesaid Nishandehi (marking of the place) are not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but they are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. In support of his aforesaid points of arguments, he relied upon V. Ravi V/s. State of Kerala 1994 Cri LJ 162; Vasudevan Viswarnbharan V/s. State of Kerala 1994 Cri LJ 1522; A. N. Vankatesh V/s. State of Karnataka , State V/s. Ram Avtar 1980 Cri LJ NOC 100 (Delhi) and State of U. P. V/s. Nahar Singh (dead) . 17. We have given our holistic view to the aforesaid rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and find no merit in any of the above pleas put-forth on behalf of the appellants for the reasons given hereinafter: Admittedly, all the accused/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants were arrested by the Delhi Police on 28-10-1999 in connection with another case bearing FIR No. 536 of 1999 registered under Sections 307/411 etc. of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station, Timarpur, Delhi, by P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar. During the interrogation of the said case on 29-10-1999, Sudhir appellant had made a disclosure statement mark A, Anupam appellant mark B, Ravi Kant appellant mark C and Raj Kumar appellant mark D. In their aforesaid disclosure statements, they had confessed in their earlier parts about the commission of the crime and in the later part, they also agreed to point out the places of occurrence and of abandoning the car, aforesaid, used in the commission of crime and the place where they had kept concealed the currency notes looted by them. Keeping is view the aforesaid facts and the law laid down in Pulukuri Kotlaya (1947 (48) Cri LJ 533), Pandurang Kalu Patil (2002) Cri LJ 1007) and Salim Akhtar (2003 Cri LJ 2302) cases (supra) relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellants, it can safely be inferred that the confession made to a police officer relating to the commission of crime is not admissible in evidence under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act, but at the same time, the ban against admissibil-ity would stand lifted if the statement distinctly related to a discovery of fact. A fact can be discovered by the police (Investigating Officer) pursuant to an information elicited from the accused if such disclosure was followed by one or more of a variety of causes. Recovery of an object is only one such cause. Further, in A.N. Venkateshs case 2005 Cri LJ 3732 (supra) relied upon by learned Addl. A.G. Haryana, the pointing out of places to the Police Officer where the offence was committed is relevant and would be admissible as conduct under Section. 8 of the Evidence Act. 18. Now in the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, let us examine the disclosure statements mark A to D and the recoveries got effect by the appellants in pursuance thereof. It has come in the evidence that the aforesaid disclosure statements were made by the appellants before P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar of Delhi Police in the presence of P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar of Delhi Police. No doubt the aforesaid disclosure statements are the photostat copies of the original one, which are proved to have been tagged with another case bearing FIR No. 536 of 1999 registered at Delhi against the appellants, but they are very much relevant under Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act for adjudication of the case in hand. It is well established on the file that P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar had recorded these disclosure statements during Interrogation of the appellants on 29-10-1999. In his atatcuiciit, he lias categorically stated that he had interrogated all the appellants, whereupon they had made their disclosure statements mark A to D in the presence of P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar and, thereafter, he had sent information to the SSP, Faridabad and SHO, Police Station, Palwal, in whose jurisdiction the occurrence of this case had taken place. In his atatcuiciit, he lias categorically stated that he had interrogated all the appellants, whereupon they had made their disclosure statements mark A to D in the presence of P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar and, thereafter, he had sent information to the SSP, Faridabad and SHO, Police Station, Palwal, in whose jurisdiction the occurrence of this case had taken place. He then also stated that he had handed over the photostate copies of these disclosure statements to S.I. Ranjit Singh (P.W. 17). This version of P.W. 8 also finds corroboration from the statement of P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar and after receipt of the information regarding the arrest of the appellants at Delhi in some other case P.W. 17 Inspector Ranjit Singh rushed to Delhi to take the custody of the appellants in this case. There, he obtained the transit remand of the appellants from the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and then brought them to Palwal in muffled faces. They were then produced before the Area Judicial Magistrate P.W. 18 Sh. Deepak Gupta, the then learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal for taking their consent to join the test identification parade, but as per their joint statement Ex. PN/1, the appellants had refused to join the test identification parade. Thereafter, seven days police remand was taken and during interrogation on 2-11-1999, the appellants stated that they had already made disclosure statements about this fact before the Delhi Police. In that behalf, as deposed by P.W. 17 Inspector Ranjit Singh, statements of P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar and P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar of Delhi, were recorded. In this view of the matter, P.W. 17 Inspector Ranjit Singh, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case did not think it proper to again record the disclosure statements of the appellants. Ultimately, on 3-11-1999, all the four appellants in pursuance of their respective disclosure statements, in all got recovered the currency notes of Rs. 85.000.00 , the details of which are given below: From appellant Two packets each containing Vide recovery memo Anup Rs. 10,000/- bearing seal of SBI Ex. PL from the place (site plan of which is Ex. PO) disclosed by him; From appellant Three packets each containing Vide recovery memo Sudhir Rs. 10,000/- bearing seal of SBI Ex. PL/1 from the place (site plan of which is Ex. 10,000/- bearing seal of SBI Ex. PL from the place (site plan of which is Ex. PO) disclosed by him; From appellant Three packets each containing Vide recovery memo Sudhir Rs. 10,000/- bearing seal of SBI Ex. PL/1 from the place (site plan of which is Ex. PO/1) disclosed by him; From appellant Three packets each containing Vide recovery memo Ravi Kant Rs. 10,000/-bearing seal of SBI Ex PL/2 from the place (site plan of which is Ex. PO/2 disclosed by him; From appellant Loose currency notes of Rs. 5000/- Vide recovery memo Raj Kumar Ex. PL/3 from the place (site plan of which is Ex.PO/3) disclosed by him. These recoveries were effected in the presence of P.W. 15 HC Ravish Kumar and P.W. 16 HC Taken Lal. Not only that, all the appellants had also led the police party to the place of occurrence in the area of Police Station, Sadar Palwal and on their pointing out, Fard Nishandehi Ex. PH was prepared on 5-11-1999. In that behalf, site plan of the place of recovery has been proved on the file as Ex. PH/1. Further, they are also proved to have led the police party at the place where they had abandoned the blue Maruti Car after commission of the crime and then on Gurgaon-Sohna Road, they pointed out the said place where upon Fard Nishandehi Ex. PN was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the said car had also been taken into possession by the police under Section 25 of the Police Act, after preparing the site plan Ex. PO/4 of the place where the said car was abandoned. All the aforesaid recoveries are proved to have been effected in pursuance of the respective disclosure statements mark A to D of the appellants. No doubt these disclosure statements have not been formally exhibited on the file and they are simply marked as mark A to D, but in view of the overwhelming evidence, as discussed above, specially consisted in the statements of the scribe P.W. 8 ASI Ram Kumar and attesting witness P.W. 5 HC Ravinder Kumar, both of Delhi Police and also taking into consideration the fact that the appellants have neither denied specifically their signatures thereon nor they have challenged the contents of the statement Ex. PA of P.W. 4 Dhani Ram, we have no hesitation to hold that the later part of the aforesaid statements relating to their conduct and recoveries got effected by them (the appellants) are admissible in evidence under Section 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act. Further, it appears that in this case, P.W. 4 Dhani Ram, who was the driver on blue Maruti Car at the time of commission of the crime intentionally failed to identify the appellants in the trial Court because of fear from the appellants. However, he has proved all other contents of his statement Ex. PA made by him before the police on the date of occurrence itself. In that, he categorically stated while appearing as P.W. 4 that on the date of occurrence, 3-4 persons had stopped their vehicle in front of his Armada jeep bearing No. HR-30-A 3502. He further stated that Deepak Goyal, since deceased, had withdrawn money from the bank. In his further statements he corroborated the contents of his statement Ex. PA which was signed by him after admitting the same to be correct. The aforesaid version of this witness also goes unchallenged in his cross-examination by learned Counsel for the appellants. It is also to add here that the appellants immediately after their arrest in this case were also produced in muffled faces before P.W. 18 Sh. Deepak Gupta, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal for seeking their consent for test identification parade, but they had refused to do so vide their joint statement Ex. PN/1 and as such, an adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Besides that the medical evidence consisted in the statement of P.W. 3 Dr. Jagmohan Mittal, who proved the post mortem report Ex. PC also strengthens the genesis of the occurrence of this case. 19 In this view of our foregoing discussion and taking into account the entire circumstantial evidence which goes a long way to connect the appellants with the commission of crime of this case, we are of the firm view that it were the appellants and none-else, who had committed the crime of this case. Hence, no interference is called for In any of the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. 20. In the result, all the aforementioned appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed.