Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.–Instant appeal has been filed by accused appellant Sarjeet Singh against the judgment dated 17.12.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:– U/s. 302 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer one years rigorous imprisonment. U/s 364 IPC To suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 394 IPC To suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC To suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. (2). Mr. Satyapal Poshwal was appointed as amicus curiae for appellant and arguments were heard. (3). The brief facts which are relevant and essential for the disposal of this appeal are as under: (4). Hardev Singh PW-1 has lodged a written report Ex.P-4 on 29.6.95 to Station House Officer, PS Ramgarh, Alwar wherein it was mentioned that dead body of unknown person was lying under the bridge of a canal near Bilaspur-Nangal Alak Road. Police registered a report and started inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Police went on the spot and seized that dead body and prepared site plan, and Panchayatnama. Photographs of that dead body were taken. During that inquiry, Karam Jeet Singh PW-4 came to Ramgarh Police Station and saw those photographs of the deceased person and identified him as his elder brother Pradeep Kumar and further told to police that on 27.06.1995 four persons came to Rewari Taxi Stand and took his brother Pradeep Kumar and his Maruti Van. His brother did not come back home, therefore, report was lodged in Rewari police station about his missing. During this inquiry, Karamjeet Singh informed the Ramgarh Police that some criminals have been arrested by the Suratgarh police with that van. Police on this information registered a case for the offence under Section 394, 302 and 201 IPC and started investigation. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded and the Maruti Van was seized by the police from Suratgarh police station. Accused Sarjeet Singh has been arrested from jail. Police on this information registered a case for the offence under Section 394, 302 and 201 IPC and started investigation. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded and the Maruti Van was seized by the police from Suratgarh police station. Accused Sarjeet Singh has been arrested from jail. Identification parade was conducted and Sarjeet Singh was identified by Karamjeet Singh and Naresh Kumar and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against accused appellant where from case was committed to Sessions Judge and ultimately was transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Alwar. (5). In this case charges for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 394 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses namely Hardev Singh Yadram Meena, Yadram Yadav, Karamjeet Singh, Naresh, Dharma Singh, Hajarilal, Balvindar, Jaisiram, Surendra Kumar, Raghunath, Shribhagwan, Anoop Kumar Saxena, Dr. L.C. Garg, Prem Singh Rajendra, Dharmpal and Ranjeet Singh. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he did not examine any defence witness. Arguments were heard and ultimately he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. (6). Arguments heard. (7). Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that prosecution has failed to prove any offence against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also argued that witnesses examined by the prosecution are not reliable, therefore, the appeal should be allowed and conviction and sentenced passed by the Trial Court should be set aside. (8). Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offences mentioned above. He has contended that PW-4 Karamjeet Singh and PW-5 Naresh Kumar are very important witnesses. They have fully proved that accused appellant Sarjeet Singh with three other persons came to Rewari and took the deceased Pradeep Kumar and his Maruti Van with them. It is also proved by their statements that when Pradeep Kumar did not turn up, a report about his missing was lodged to Police Station, Rewari. It is also argued that it is fully proved by the statement of PW-1 Hardev Singh that a dead body of unknown person was lying under the bridge of canal on the way of Bilaspur Nangal Road. It is also proved that photographs of that dead body was taken. It is also argued that it is fully proved by the statement of PW-1 Hardev Singh that a dead body of unknown person was lying under the bridge of canal on the way of Bilaspur Nangal Road. It is also proved that photographs of that dead body was taken. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that Karamjeet Singh who is brother of the deceased and Naresh Kumar has identified the dead body by photographs as of deceased Pradeep Kumar. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that it has been proved that accused Sarjeet Singh was arrested by Suratgarh police with that Maruti Van and case under Section 411 IPC was registered against him and challan was filed. It is also argued that Sarjeet Singh has burnt relevant papers of van and its ash was recovered. It is also argued that identification parade was conducted in the jail and Karamjeet Singh and Naresh Kumar have identified Sarjeet Singh correctly and has also identified in Court. It is also argued that all the circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence was put to accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but no reasonable explanation was given by him. It is also argued that Trial Court has rightly convicted him for the above mentioned offences. (9). We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the impugned judgment and have also examined all the evidence recorded by the Trial Court. (10). Prosecution has examined PW-1 Hardev Singh. We have gone through his statement, we have no reason to disbelieve his statement and by his statement it is clear that he saw a dead body of unknown person under the bridge of canal on the Bilaspur Nangal Road. He informed the police and submitted a report mentioning all the facts. It is also proved that police seized dead body of that unknown person and Ex.P-1, 2, 3 and 4 were prepared. (11). In this case most important witnesses are Karamjeet Singh and Naresh Kumar. Prosecution has examined both of them in court. We have gone through their statement and after examining their statement in detail we are of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve statement of these two witnesses. Learned Amicus Curiae could not persuade us after all why these two important witnesses are falsely implicated Sarjeet Singh. Prosecution has examined both of them in court. We have gone through their statement and after examining their statement in detail we are of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve statement of these two witnesses. Learned Amicus Curiae could not persuade us after all why these two important witnesses are falsely implicated Sarjeet Singh. Both these witnesses namely Karamjeet Singh and Naresh Kumar have stated in their statement that they went to police station Ramgarh they saw photographs Ex.P-9, 10 and 11 of the dead body of that unknown person. Both of them have stated that they have identified that body in those photographs as of deceased Pradeep Kumar. We have examined entire evidence relating to this fact and we are of the view that prosecution has fully proved this fact that the dead body found on 29.6.95 was of Pradeep Kumar. (12). Karamjeet Singh and Naresh Kumar have also stated in their statement that on 27.6.95, deceased Pradeep Kumar was on taxi stand, Rewari, he was having his taxi No. HR-36-2360. They have also stated that accused appellant with three other persons came there and asked Pradeep Kumar for taxi and promised to pay Rs. 500/-. They have also stated that accused appellant and other three persons took taxi of Pradeep Kumar for taxi and promised to pay Rs. 500/-. They have also stated that accused appellant and other three persons took taxi of Pradeep Kumar for Kishangarh and they have also stated that Pradeep Kumar was driving that taxi and went with them. They have also stated that Pradeep Kumar did not come back. The identification parade was conducted in the jail, both of these witnesses have identified accused Sarjeet Singh correctly. Both of these witnesses have also identified him in the Court also. We have gone through the statement of both these witnesses, we do not see any reason to disbelieve their statements. Learned Amicus Curiae could not persuade us after all why these two witnesses falsely implicated this accused appellant Sarjeet Singh. In our considered opinion that prosecution has fully proved that on 29.6.95 Sarjeet Singh and other three persons came to Rewari Taxi Stand asked deceased Pradeep Kumar to take his taxi to Kishangarh and promised to make payment of Rs. 500/-. In our considered opinion that prosecution has fully proved that on 29.6.95 Sarjeet Singh and other three persons came to Rewari Taxi Stand asked deceased Pradeep Kumar to take his taxi to Kishangarh and promised to make payment of Rs. 500/-. It is also fully proved that this accused appellant Sarjeet Singh with three other persons took that taxi for Kishangarh and deceased Pradeep Kumar was driving that taxi at that time. It is also proved that dead body of unknown person was found lying under the bridge of canal Bilaspur Nangal Road and that dead body was seized by the police and photographs of that body were taken and two witnesses Karam Jeet Singh and Naresh Kumar identified that body as of deceased Pradeep Kumar. We have also examined statement of Jaisi Ram, Ramawatar Prem Singh Yadram, Raghunath,Dr. L.C. Garg and Prem Singh Shekhawat. We have also gone through the post mortem report Ex.P-18. We have also gone through FSL report Ex.P-19 and 20. After reading statement of PW-14 Dr. LC Garg and examining post mortem report Ex.P-18 and FSL report Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-20. It is clear that Pradeep Kumar was administered poison and he died because of that poison. It is also proved by the prosecution that accused appellant Sarjeet Singh was arrested by Suratgarh Police with that Maruti Van it is also proved by the statement of Ramawatar that owner of that Maruti Van was Pradeep Kumar we have also examined the statement of accused Sarjeet Singh recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him were put to him in detail in those statement but he has not given any explanation about those circumstances. He has also not stated in his statement why these witnesses have given statement against him. We have also gone through the impugned judgment we have considered all the aspects of this case and after considering all the aspects of this case we are of the view that accused appellant Sarjeet Singh has been rightly convicted and sentence for the offence under Section 302, 364, 394 and 201 IPC. (13). For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal. The same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302, 364, 394 and 201 IPC are confirmed. _