JUDGMENT MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.445-DB of 1997 has been filed by appellants Billa Masih and Tarsem Masih and Criminal Revision No.713 of 1997 has been filed by Hanif Masih. We will be deciding both the appeals as well as the revision by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 2.5.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur whereby he convicted appellants Billa Masih under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo RI for three months. Appellant Tarsem Masih was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 LP.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to further undergo RI for three months. 2. The prosecution case is unfolded by the statement Ex.P A given by Avtar Singh to ASI Joginder Singh at the Turning Point of G.T. Road, Kalyanpur on 10.1.1996 at 6.05 p.m. Avtar Singh stated that he is a resident of Village Singhpura. He has sown 1- 1/4 acres of sugarcane crop in his fields which is on the corner of a metalled road. On 10.1.1996, he along with his servant Randhir Singh alias Papa son of Kartar Singh went to his fields for cutting the sugarcane crop at about 2 p.m. When both of them were cutting the sugarcane crop, they saw the dead-body of an unidentified person. The colour of the dead-body was black. His head had been severed from the trunk. The dead-body appeared to be lying there for the last several days. Flesh from the head, mouth and from the chest had been eaten by animals and birds. The dead-body was wearing shirt of Khakhi colour, pant of light green colour, sweater of red colour, underwear of red and violet colour and socks of chequered design of blue-white colour. Before giving this statement to ASI Joginder Singh, Avtar Singh informed Harpinder Singh Sarpanch of his village. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex. PA/2 was recorded on 10.1.1996 at 6.25/7.25 p.m. The special report reached the J.M.I.C., Gurdaspur on the same day at 10 p.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-l Avtar Singh, PW-2 Jassa Singh, PW-3 Ashraf, PW-4 Gopal Krishan, PW-5 Hanif Masih, PW-6 Daljit Singh, PW-7 Dr. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ex. PA/2 was recorded on 10.1.1996 at 6.25/7.25 p.m. The special report reached the J.M.I.C., Gurdaspur on the same day at 10 p.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-l Avtar Singh, PW-2 Jassa Singh, PW-3 Ashraf, PW-4 Gopal Krishan, PW-5 Hanif Masih, PW-6 Daljit Singh, PW-7 Dr. H.S. Bhatia, PW-8 Hardial Singh, PW-9 Sowaran Singh, PW-10 Sanjeev Kumar, PW- ll Joginder Singh’ PW-12 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, PW-13 Dr. Sindhu Raj, PW-14 Nirmal Singh, PW-15 Pal winder Singh, PW-16 Gurcharan Singh, PW-17 Sardar Singh and PW-18 Roshan Lal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the testimony of and does not appeal to the mind. Statements of both Jassa Singh PW-2 and Ashraf PW-3 regarding the last seen evidence is not truthful and does not appeal to the mind. Statements of both Jass Singh PW-2 and Ashraf PW-3 were recorded after 1-1/2 months of the occurrence. Jassa Singh PW-2 has stated in his testimony that two other persons from Village Raheemabad were also working with him along with Riaz Masih alias Raju. Both Jassa Singh PW-2 and Ashraf P.W-3 are interested witnesses and belong to Village Sarje Chak, i.e. the village, of deceased Raju. The extra judicial confession made to Daljit Singh PW-6, Ex- Sarpanch of Village Sarje Chak does not inspire confidence. Daljit Singh PW-6 did not have any kind of social relations with the appellants. There was no reason for them to confess about the murder to him. Daljit Singh PW-6 belongs to Village Sarje Chak, i.e. the village of the deceased and appellants belong to Village Uppal. If they had committed the crime, and had wanted to confess, they would have confessed it to a person of their own village, or a person whom they knew very well and who could help them. The alleged extra judicial confession was made to Daljit Singh PW-6 on 13.1.1996 and appellants were produced before the Investigating Officer Sowaran Singh PW-9 on 1.2.1996. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the dead body has not been properly identified. Apart from the clothes, father of deceased Hanif Masih PW -5 has not been in a position to identify the dead-body, from a scar, hair or any part of the body. Dr. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the dead body has not been properly identified. Apart from the clothes, father of deceased Hanif Masih PW -5 has not been in a position to identify the dead-body, from a scar, hair or any part of the body. Dr. Gurmanjit Rai PW-12 has stated in his testimony that finger balls were taken to identify the deceased, but strangely, they were not sent to any Forensic Science Laboratory, so that identity of the dead-body could be confirmed. The only identification we get of the body of the deceased is the alleged statement made by Hanif Masih PW-5 regarding the clothes the deceased was wearing. The recovery of scooter No.PCB-2912 made allegedly on the disclosure statement of appellant Billa Masih is falsified by the statement of Gopal Krishan PW-4 who had allegedly sold scooter to the deceased. Gopal Krishan PW-4 has stated in his testimony that he is the owner of the scooter and its registration is still in his name. Appellants were taken into custody by Sowaran Singh PW-9 on 12.1.1996 and it is thereafter that a false case was foisted on them. Telegrams Exhibits D1 to D.l3 which were sent to the higher authorities, are dated 16.1.1996. The Post Office receipts also corroborate that the telegrams were sent on these dates. 6. As per the statement of Constable Lakhbir Singh DW -2, shirt of Khakhi colour, pant of light green colour, sweater of red colour and underwear of purple colour along with a pair of socks allegedly worn by the deceased were not deposited in the Malkhana. Strangely they were not also shown to the father of the deceased Hanif Masih PW -5 in Court to prove the identification of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the dead- body of the deceased was recovered on 10.1.1996 by Avtar Singh PW-1. Appellant Billa Masih in his disclosure statement ear- marked the place of occurrence. Last seen evidence as per the statement given by Jassa Singh PW-2; Ashraf PW-3 and Hanif Masih PW -5 cannot be disbelieved as practically their statements in examination-in-chief have gone unchallenged when they were cross- examined. The truthfulness of Hanif Masih PW-5 can be gauged from the fact that’ a D.D.R., Ex. Last seen evidence as per the statement given by Jassa Singh PW-2; Ashraf PW-3 and Hanif Masih PW -5 cannot be disbelieved as practically their statements in examination-in-chief have gone unchallenged when they were cross- examined. The truthfulness of Hanif Masih PW-5 can be gauged from the fact that’ a D.D.R., Ex. PS which was recorded on 19.12.1995 in Police Station Kalanaur and wherein he has named appellant Billa Masih, along with whom the deceased had gone on scooter No.PCB-2912. He has also stated that deceased Riaz Masih alias Raju had to take Rs.6300/- from appellant Billa Masih because of payment of getting the committee money. Further, he has stated that until now i.e. 19.12.1995, he did not doubt any person, nor is he doubting that anybody has played mischief with his son, though he is still carrying on the search to find his son. Till D.D.R. Ex.PS was lodged on 19.12.1995, Hanif Masih PW-5 did not suspect the appellants to have killed his son. It is only after his son’s body was found and F.I.R. Ex.P A/2 was lodged, that the Investigating Officer Sowaran Singh PW-9 after investigating the matter, found that it was no other person than appellants Billa Masih and Tarsem Masih who had committed the murder of Riaz Masih alias Raju. Identification of the deceased was done with the help of the clothes which were produced by ASI Joginder Singh PW-11 in Court. Shirt is Ex.PI3, pant Ex.PI4, sweater Ex.PI5, underwear Ex.PI6, pair of socks Exs.P.I7 and P.I8.. These clothes were duly identified by the Investigating Officer Sowaran Singh PW-9 who had taken these clothes into his possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC during the course of investigation. Memo Ex.PC was attested by Hanif Masih PW-5, Sabdal Masih and Constable Balwinder Singh. Knife Ex.PI which was recovered on the disclosure statement Ex.PF made by Billa Masih and the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased get corroboration from the medical evidence. Dr.Gurmanjit Rai PW-12 has stated in his testimony that injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased were stab wounds. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 9. Dr.Gurmanjit Rai PW-12 has stated in his testimony that injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased were stab wounds. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 9. The chain of events which culminated in the murder of Riaz Masih alias Raju son of Hanif Masih PW-5, and thereafter his body being found in the fields of Avtar Singh PW-l are such, which are cogent and convincing and do not break at any stage. Jassa Singh PW.;2 and Ashraf PW-3 are independent witnesses. Jassa Singh PW-2 belongs to Village Kalanaur and Ashraf PW-3 belongs to Village Sarje Chak, the village of the deceased. Jassa Singh PW-2 has stated that he was constructing his house at Village Kalanaur. Deceased Raju son of Hanif Masih was working as a mason with him. On 19.12.1995, at about 3 p.m., appellants Billa Masih and Tarsem Masih came to his house. Both being tailors by profession and had a shop at Kalanaur. They asked him to call Raju, as they had some work with him regarding some payment of Rs.6300/- which appellants had to make to Raju. At about 5.15 p.m., after Raju had finished his work, Jassa Singh PW-2 saw the appellants and deceased Raju going together on scooter No.PCB 2912. Thereafter Raju did not come back to work. He has further stated that Raju was working in their village for the last 5/6 months as a mason. After the disappearance of Raju, his father Hanif Masih PW-5 came to Jassa Singh PW-2 and enquired as to where Raju had gone. He was told that Raju had left the previous evening. After about 30/40 days of the occurrence, the dead-body of Raju was recovered. Police called Hanif Masih PW-5 to identify the dead- body of Raju in the police station. Similarly, Ashraf PW-3 has stated in his testimony that he belongs to Village Sarje Chak. On 9.12.1995 at about 5.30 p.m., when he was standing in Village Dhariwal, he met Raju deceased and appellants Billa Masih and Tarsem Masih. All of them were on a scooter. Appellant Billa Masih asked Ashraf PW-3 for some money, as he owed some money to Raju. Ashraf PW-3 told appellant Billa Masih that he did not have any money. Thereafter appellants and Raju exchanged hot words. All of them were on a scooter. Appellant Billa Masih asked Ashraf PW-3 for some money, as he owed some money to Raju. Ashraf PW-3 told appellant Billa Masih that he did not have any money. Thereafter appellants and Raju exchanged hot words. Raju told appellant Billa Masih that he was deliberately putting him off by not giving him the money he owed him. All the three then left on a scooter towards the bazaar 10. Similarly, Hanif Masih PW-5 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that on 9.12.1995, his son Riaz Masih alias Raju was working as Mason at Kalanaur. After getting free, he accompanied Billa Masih to Village Uppal in order to get Rs.6300/-. Appellants Billa Masih, Tarsem Masih and Raju deceased, went on scooter No.PCB-2912, which had been purchased by Raju a day earlier. Raju did not come back to the house thereafter. He kept searching for him and after not being successful, he recorded D.D.R. Ex.PS on 19.12.1995. In D.D.R. Ex.PS, appellant Billa Masih was named. In the D.D.R. the money owed by appellant Billa Masih to deceased Raju has also been mentioned. It has also been mentioned in the D.D.R. Ex.PS that appellants were going with the deceased on a scooter. Gopal Krishan PW -4 has come into the witness-box and stated that he sold scooter No.PCB-2912 to Raju deceased for a total consideration of Rs.9000/-. Out of this a sum of Rs.8500/- had been paid to him. On 12.1.1996, Hanif Masih PW-5 read a news item in the newspaper “Jagbani” of a deteriorated body being found. He went to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where the dead-body had been sent for post-mortem of his brother-in-law Sabdal Masih accompanied him. It is there in the Civil Hospital that Hanif Masih PW-5 identified the dead-body that being of his son Riaz Masih alias Raju by the clothes on the dead-body. There was a shirt of khakhi colour, pant of light green colour, sweater of pink colour which were identified by Hanif Masih PW -5 of they being of his son. These were the clothes Raju deceased was wearing at the time when he disappeared. 11. The extra-judicial confession made to Daljit Singh PW-6 Ex-Sarpanch of Village Sarje Chak inspires confidence. Daljit Singh is a commission agent. He has stated that on 13.1.1996, he was present in his house. Both Billa Masih and Tarsem Masih came there. These were the clothes Raju deceased was wearing at the time when he disappeared. 11. The extra-judicial confession made to Daljit Singh PW-6 Ex-Sarpanch of Village Sarje Chak inspires confidence. Daljit Singh is a commission agent. He has stated that on 13.1.1996, he was present in his house. Both Billa Masih and Tarsem Masih came there. Appellant Billa Masih told him that he owed some money to deceased Raju. Appellants and deceased Raju all then went to Village Dhariwal where they met Ashraf PW -3. Appellant Billa Masih asked Ashraf PW -3 for money, who refused to give it to him. Raju then called him names and told him that he was not making the payment and instead, was harassing him. Appellant Billa Masih then asked Raju to accompany him to his village, so that he could make payment there, after getting it from someone. All the three left on a scooter from Dhariwal. They went on the link road towards Singhpura and near a sugarcane field the scooter was stopped on the pretext of drinking water. Thereafter both the appellants caught hold of Raju and gave him 5/6 blows with knife Ex.P1. The argument put forward by the counsel for the appellants, that Daljit Singh PW-6 belongs to the same village of the deceased and that appellants would not have gone to a stranger who does not belong to their village to confess their guilt. If they did want to confess their guilt, they would have gone to a respectable of their own village. This argument of the counsel for the appellants does not cut much ice. Daljit Singh PW -6 is not only the Ex Sarpanch of Village Sarje Chak, but also is a commission agent. He is a person who would have contacts with the police, since such like people have got to visit govt. offices for redressal of the grievances of their supporters. The two other persons who were working along with Raju, in Village Kalanaur, were not identified by Jassa Singh PW-2, and thus, the police did not interrogate them. Though the extra judicial confession made to Daljit Singh, PW-6 was made on 3.1.1996, appellants were produced on 1.2.1996 before the Investigating Officer. Nothing has come on record or in the cross-examination of Daljit Singh PW-6 as to the reasons why he took such a long time to produce them. Though the extra judicial confession made to Daljit Singh, PW-6 was made on 3.1.1996, appellants were produced on 1.2.1996 before the Investigating Officer. Nothing has come on record or in the cross-examination of Daljit Singh PW-6 as to the reasons why he took such a long time to produce them. The only presumption we can draw is that, after confessing their guilt to Daljit Singh PW 6, appellants after they had made up their minds that they came back to Daljit Singh PW -6 to be produced before the police. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid a lot of stress that the dead-body of Raju was not properly identified. Dr. H.S. Bhatia PW-7 has stated in his testimony that death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrage as a result of injuries to lungs and spleen, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death had occurred within one month prior to 12.1.1996, the day on which the body was brought to the hospital. The dead-body was not identifiable. No relative of the deceased was there with body, for identification. Dr. Gurmanjit Rai PW-12 in his testimony before the Court has stated that the dead-body was of a young male and was found wrapped in a polethene sheet wearing green pant, red colour sweater, light yellow shirt and a banyan, pair of socks and underwear. Clothes were found blood-stained. Shirt, banyan and sweater were found having cut holes the on front and back. Injuries on the person of the deceased were stab wounds. He has further opined that sex of the dead-body was male. Age was about 20 to 30 years. Body was not identifiable, as it was at an advance stage of putrification. Chemical Examiner’s report Ex. PB, is that blood was found on the shirt, pant, sweater, Kachha, pair of socks and banyan. Shirt, sweater and Kachha was stained with human blood. The best person who could identify the dead- body of Raju was his father Hanif Masih PW-5. Hanif Masih after reading a news item in the newspaper “Jagbani”, went to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and after seeing the clothes, he was certain that the mutilated body was that of his son Raju. Clothes were produced in Court and duly proved. Shirt Ex. P13, pant Ex. P14, sweater Ex. P15, underwear Ex. P16 and a pair of socks Exs. Hanif Masih after reading a news item in the newspaper “Jagbani”, went to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and after seeing the clothes, he was certain that the mutilated body was that of his son Raju. Clothes were produced in Court and duly proved. Shirt Ex. P13, pant Ex. P14, sweater Ex. P15, underwear Ex. P16 and a pair of socks Exs. P17 and P18. Nothing has been put to Hanif Masih PW-5 and Sowaran Singh PW -9 that these clothes did not belong to the deceased. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the statement of Lakhbir Singh DW-2 who has stated in his testimony that he had brought Register No.19 pertaining to Police Station Dhariwal regarding case No. F.l.R. No.6 dated 10.1.1996. He has stated that apart from the blood-stained earth, nothing else was deposited pertaining to the case in the Malkhana. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that even after 10.1.1996, no case property regarding this case was deposited. But when cross-examined, he changed his statement and stated that one scooter No.PCB-2912 and one knife was deposited in the Malkhana on 3.2.1996 in this case. This witness cannot be relied upon where in examination-in-chief he has stated that after 10.1.1996 no case property was deposited. But on being crossexamined, he has stated that a scooter and knife was deposited. As earlier discussed, Clothes of the deceased, which he was wearing at the time of his murder, were brought before the Court and duly exhibited and proved. 14. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 2.5.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Appeal is dismissed? 15. Appellants, if on bail, are directed to surrender before the C.J.M., Gurdaspur forthwith, to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. Cr.Revision No.713 of 1997 No one has appeared for the revision petitioner. We do not find any merit in the revision and it is dismissed.