Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The appellants A-1 Ramesh @ Papia, A-2 Prakash Deshantri and A-3 Ramesh Khatri S/o Dashrath Kumar have been convicted of offence under Sections 302 and 364, IPC, on the charge of kidnapping and murder of a minor boy Kamlesh aged 7 years son of PW. 1 Leeladhar and each of them sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 5,000/-by the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer dated 31.01.2002. .2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 16.04.1998 PW. 1 Leeladhar submitted a missing report Exhibit P/1 at Police Station, Barmer stating that on 05.04.1998 his son Kamlesh aged 7 years left for the school in the morning but did not return till evening at 7:00 PM. On 19.04.1998 another written report Exhibit P/2 was submitted by PW. 1 Leeladhar stating inter alia that during the search of his missing son, he received an information from the police tracing out the dead body of his son found in forest behind Surjesar Hillock. He went to the spot alongwith his relatives and found the dead body of his deceased son in decomposed and mutilated condition. Some parts of the body were eaten by animals. He also found a Pent, Bushirt, Belt, Shoes, Socks and School Bag of his deceased son lying near the dead body. He identified the dead body i.e., of his son. He suspected involvement of A-3 Ramesh Khatri S/o Dashrath Kumar, A-1 Ramesh alias Papia S/o Bhanwarlal, Inder, Ganesh etc. in murder of his son. He also stated that his son had left the house in the company of Santosh S/o Pitamber for going to the school. A-1 Ramesh leaving his nephew Santosh picked up deceased Kamlesh on the Scooter. It was disclosed by his wife that A-2 Ramesh had also followed them. It was further stated that some time back his wife had seen A-3 Ramesh Khatri entering in the house of his neighbour in suspicious circumstances. It was suspected that Ramesh Khatri was having illicit relations with Mst. Pannu the daughter of his neighbour. The said fact was made public by his wife. This led to hostility between two families. A-3 Ramesh threatened them of finishing the family on getting the opportunity. On this information the police registered a case for offences under Sections 364 and 302, IPC, and proceeded with investigation. Pannu the daughter of his neighbour. The said fact was made public by his wife. This led to hostility between two families. A-3 Ramesh threatened them of finishing the family on getting the opportunity. On this information the police registered a case for offences under Sections 364 and 302, IPC, and proceeded with investigation. The police sent the dead body for autopsy which was conducted by a Medical Board. The accused persons were arrested and incriminating articles were recovered in pursuance of the information given by them. After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offences under Sections 302 and 364, IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. The prosecution led oral and documentary evidence in order to prove the complicity of the appellants in the crime relying on the following place of circumstances:- .(1) Deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. .(2) Recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance of the information given by the appellants. .(3) Motive. 3. The appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. A perusal of the Judgment shows that the learned Judge averted only to the evidence of last seen and having found the same proved convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above. The learned Judge has not addressed to other two circumstances viz. recovery of the incriminating article and the motive. 4. Challenging the conviction, it is urged by the learned Counsel that in the first instance the prosecution has not been able to satisfactorily establish the incriminating circumstance of last seen and secondly even if it is found to be proved, the said circumstance alone is not sufficient to establish complicity of the appellants in the crime beyond doubt. The learned Counsel in support of the contentions has placed reliance on the decisions Indradeo Mishra vs. State of M.P. Reported in 1997 SCC (Cri) 201, Tarseem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1735, and Chandmal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1976 SC 917 . On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the trial Court. It is also admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not dealt with the other two circumstances viz. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the trial Court. It is also admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not dealt with the other two circumstances viz. the recovery of the incriminating articles and motive. It is submitted that the appellate Court having wide power can look into the material evidence available on record. Mr. L.D. Khatri learned Counsel for the complainant assisting the learned Public Prosecutor has referred to various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court viz. State of Rajasthan vs. Ramesh @ Gaguda & Anr., reported in 2006 (2) RDD 640 (Raj) D.B., Nisar Khan @ Guddu & Ors., vs. State of Untranchal, reported in JT 2006 (2) SC 262, State of Rajasthan vs. Jamil Khan, reported in 2005 (I) CrLR 296 (Raj), (D.B.), Golakonda Vankataswar Rao vs. State of A.P., reported in 2003 (9) SCC 277 , State of Rajasthan vs. Sri Bhagwan, reported in 2000 (1) RCC 357, D.B., Sri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 296 and Dhananjay Chatterjee alias Dhana vs. State or W .B., reported in 1994 (2) SCC 220 . 5. We have scanned, scrutinized and evaluated the entire evidence exhaustively and have also considered the rival contentions. Before we advert to the rival contentions, it would be convenient to briefly survey the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6. PW. 1 Leeladhar is the father of the deceased. His elder brother PW. 12 Deva Shanker and the younger brother PW. 17 Daulat lived in Jaisalmer. Among three children his deceased son Kamlesh was eldest. His son used to go to the school with Santosh the son of Pitamber. On 15.04.1998 his son left for the school in the company of Santosh. On the way Pitambers brother appellant A-1 Ramesh alias Pappu picked up his son and carried him on the scooter leaving his nephew on the road. In the evening while he was on his job, he was informed that his son Kamlesh had not returned from the school and was missing. He went to the house and inquired about his son. He alongwith his wife and other relatives made search of his son at various places. The School Teacher reported that Kamlesh had not attended the school at all. On the next day he submitted a missing report at the Police Station. He went to the house and inquired about his son. He alongwith his wife and other relatives made search of his son at various places. The School Teacher reported that Kamlesh had not attended the school at all. On the next day he submitted a missing report at the Police Station. After about 5 days he was being informed about the recovery of dead body in the forest. He went to the spot alongwith the policeman. He found that the dead body was of his missing son Kamlesh. He also stated that as he suspected complicity of A-1 Ramesh @ Papia in missing of his son. He inquired about A-1 Ramesh. He was told by his parents that he had gone to Delhi. He also narrated the incident of entering of A-3 Ramesh Khatri in suspicious circumstances in the house Indermal Brahmin. He has also given the details of the further investigation of the case. There is a lengthy cross-examination but nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 7. PW. 7 Smt. Rambha is the mother of the deceased. She stated that in front of their house there is a shop of A-1 Ramesh @ Papia. While she was getting ready her deceased son Kamlesh for sending him to school, A-1 Ramesh @ Papia, A-2 Prakash and A-3 Ramesh Khatri were standing on the shop. His son tied black pent, white bushirt, black shoes with socks. He also put on black belt. He left the house carrying the school bag at about 11:45 AM alongwith Santosh the nephew of A-1 Ramesh @ Papia. They were followed by A-1 Ramesh @ Papia on a scooter. She was watching standing on the gate of the house. After some time A-2 Prakash and A-3 Ramesh Khatri also followed them. She also stated that because of an incident wherein she had seen A-3 Ramesh Khatri entering in the house of her neighbour, she was being threatened by the accused persons. A-3 Ramesh Khatri threatened that he will finish her entire family. During search she went to the house of A-1 Ramesh @ Papia and inquired about her son. He simply pleaded ignorance. She has also given the details of further investigation and visit to the site. There is a lengthy cross-examination but nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 8. PW. During search she went to the house of A-1 Ramesh @ Papia and inquired about her son. He simply pleaded ignorance. She has also given the details of further investigation and visit to the site. There is a lengthy cross-examination but nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 8. PW. 12 Deva Shanker is the brother of PW. 1 Leeladhar. He stated that on 15.04.1998 he received an information about the missing of Kamlesh. He rushed to Barmer and went in search of the missing boy. He also stated that his brother PW. 1 Leeladhar and the accused persons lived in the same locality. PW. 17 Daulat is another brother of PW. 1 Leeladhar. His statement is almost on the same line. PW. 16 Smt. Asha is the wife of PW. 12 Deva Shanker. She was staying at Jaisalmer. She reached to Barmer alongwith her husband on receiving the information of missing of Kamlesh. 9. PW. 8 Hansraj with his son PW. 9 Khet Singh used to graze cattle in the forest. These two witnesses have first seen the dead body lying in the forest. They gave information to the police about the said fact. 10. PW. 22 Dr. S.P. Vyas stated that he was one of the member of the Board which conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Kamlesh vide Exhibit P/52. He stated that the body was decomposed and in mutilated condition. The opinion was given by the Board vide Exhibit P/53 to the effect that it was not possible to know the cause of death as the entire body had been mutilated. 11. PW. 29 Jala Ram is the Investigating Officer. At the relevant time he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Barmer. He has given the details of the investigation. He stated that articles seized and packed were deposited by him with PW. 15 Chanana Ram at Police Station, Sadar Barmer. PW. 15 Chanana Ram stated that in FIR Case No. 88/98, Jala Ram, S.H.O., Police Station, Barmer deposited the articles on 20.04.1998 and 24.04.1998. He made entries of the articles in the Malkhana Register. He further stated that on 29.04.1998 one packet seal mark B was delivered to PW. 14 Kamlesh for carrying to the office of the Superintendent of Police. The rest of the articles were given to PW. He made entries of the articles in the Malkhana Register. He further stated that on 29.04.1998 one packet seal mark B was delivered to PW. 14 Kamlesh for carrying to the office of the Superintendent of Police. The rest of the articles were given to PW. 13 Kanwara Ram for delivery in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jodhpur through office of the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur. He also stated that articles remained in the Malkhana in sealed and intact condition. PW. 13 Kanwara Ram was posted as a Constable at the Police Station, Barmer. He stated that received 11 articles in sealed and intact condition from PW. 15 Chanana Ram. He carried them to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Barmer. After obtaining the forwarding letter. He handed over the articles in sealed condition to PW. 19 Hindu Singh for delivering them in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jodhpur. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination on to discredit the testimony of this witness. PW. 14 Kamlesh was posted as a Constable at the Police Station, Barmer. He stated that on 29.04.1998, PW. 15 Chanana Ram handed over one packet in sealed condition for delivery in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Barmer. He took the articles in sealed condition from the Office of Superintendent of Police, Barmer and after obtaining the forwarding letter handed over same to PW. 19 Hindu Singh for delivery at Jaipur. PW. 19 Hindu Singh, at the relevant time, was posted in the Office Superintendent of Police, Barmer. On 29.04.1998 he received 11 articles in sealed condition from PW. 13 Kanwara Ram for delivery in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jodhpur. On the same day he received one article from PW. 13 Kanwara Ram for delivery in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur. On 30th he left Barmer and carried those articles. Eleven articles were delivered in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur and one article in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. The FSL report Exhibit-P/85 shows that the packets were received in sealed condition. Seals bearing impression tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded on all the packets were intact. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the link evidence to the effect that articles seized remained intact till they were delivered in the Forensic Science Laboratory. 12. The FSL report Exhibit-P/85 shows that the packets were received in sealed condition. Seals bearing impression tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded on all the packets were intact. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the link evidence to the effect that articles seized remained intact till they were delivered in the Forensic Science Laboratory. 12. Before we proceed to deal with each circumstance setup above, it will be profitable to reiterate the settled position of law that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilty can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances of the case are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Having regard to the principles enunciated in different cases by the Apex Court and this Court to the proof by circumstantial evidence, we shall examine the various circumstances said to be appearing against the appellants in the instant case. 13. The first circumstance put forward by the prosecution to prove the complicity of the appellants in the crime is of last seen. PW. 3 Mool Chand is a goldsmith. He stated that he was known to Leeladhar, Ramesh Desantri and Prakash by face. He also stated that he knew Leeladhar by name and face, whereas the accused persons were known to him only by facts. He also stated that on the date of incident in the afternoon at about 12 he had seen all the three accused persons moving towards Panch Batti Circle Road on a Scooter. He had also seen the son of Leeladhar fixed between the three accused persons on the Scooter. Thus, the statement of this witness is criticized by the learned Counsel on the ground that in the cross-examination he could not identify Ramesh Khatri. We are of the view that the criticism is of no substance. In the cross-examination he was asked to identify as to who was Remesh Khatri among three. He could not identify Ramesh Khatri among three. It may be stated that in examination-in-chief itself the witness stated that he knew all the three appellants by face and not by name. He also stated that he knew the deceased Kamlesh by face as he used to go to school alongwith his son. He could not identify Ramesh Khatri among three. It may be stated that in examination-in-chief itself the witness stated that he knew all the three appellants by face and not by name. He also stated that he knew the deceased Kamlesh by face as he used to go to school alongwith his son. On careful consideration, we are of the view that there is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. 14. PW. 4 Gautam Chand is also a goldsmith. He stated that on the date of incident at about 12:15 he had seen the appellants Ramesh Desantri and Prakash moving on the scooter alongwith a small boy. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he did not known the accused persons and the child prior to the date of incident. The criticism against this witness is that in absence of the identification in Court preceded by identification in the parade is not worth of credence. This contention also has no merit. There is no rule that an identification must be preceded by identification parade. 15. PW. 10 Bijla Ram stated that on 15.04.1998 he had gone to Sujesar hillock for collecting fire wood. While he was returning, on Gehu Road he saw Papia Desantri and Prakash alongwith the boy moving towards hillock. The child was moving alongwith Papia Desantri. There was a bag in the hand of Prakash Desantri. The boy was bearing black pent, white shirt. He had also put on black shoes. Nearby there is a room of Chuna Darji, were Ramesh Khatri was standing. Thereafter all the three and the child moved towards the hillock. He identified all the accused appellants in the Court. His statement under Section 164, CrPC, was recorded before PW. 27 Jamna Das Thanvi Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. He also stated that he was known to all the three accused persons and the child. There is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit this witness. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the circumstances of last seen i.e., the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. The circumstance is of clinching nature. 16. As regards the second circumstance, PW. 29 Jala Ram stated that he had arrested A-1 Ramesh @ Papia on 22.04.1998 vide Exhibit P/41. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the circumstances of last seen i.e., the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. The circumstance is of clinching nature. 16. As regards the second circumstance, PW. 29 Jala Ram stated that he had arrested A-1 Ramesh @ Papia on 22.04.1998 vide Exhibit P/41. In pursuance of the information given by him vide Exhibit-P/63 his own apparel i.e., Pent and shirt stained with blood were recovered vide Exhibit-P/49 from his house in presence of Motbirs PW. 21 Moolchand and PW. 23 Heera Lal. The pent and shirt were seized and sealed in a Packet marked S-8. As per the FSL report Exhibit-P/86 the presence of blood on the Pent and Shirt are of human origin. There is no explanation given by the appellant as to presence of human blood on his clothes. 17. As regard A-2 Prakash, he was arrested vide Exhibit-P/43. While in custody he produced his own Pent and Shirt from his house vide Exhibit-P/49 in pursuance of the information given by him Exhibit-P/63 in presence of the Motbirs PW. 21 Moolchand and PW. 23 Heeralal. The Pent and Shirt were seized and sealed in a Packet marked S-9. As per the FSL Report Exhibit P/86 the pent and shirt have been found to be stained with human blood. There is no explanation given by the appellant for the presence of the human blood on his clothes. 18. A-3 Ramesh Khatri was arrested vide Exhibit P/42. While in custody, he led the police to his house and got recovered his own clothes stained with blood vide Exhibit-P/50 in pursuance of the information given vide Exhibit-P/67 in presence of Motbirs PW. 21 Moolchand and PW. 23 Heeralal. The articles were sealed and packed on the spot in a packet marked S-7. As per the FSL Report the pent and shirt has been found to be stained with human blood. There is no explanation of the appellant A-3 Ramesh Khatri as to the presence of human blood on his clothes. 19. As regard the third circumstance PW. 1 Leeladhar stated that about three months back from the date of missing of his deceased son, A-3 Ramesh Khatri was seen entering in the house of his neighbor Indermal in suspicious circumstance. This was reported by his wife PW. 7 Smt. Rambha. 19. As regard the third circumstance PW. 1 Leeladhar stated that about three months back from the date of missing of his deceased son, A-3 Ramesh Khatri was seen entering in the house of his neighbor Indermal in suspicious circumstance. This was reported by his wife PW. 7 Smt. Rambha. It was suspected that Remesh Khatri was having illicit relations with the daughter of Indermal. The incident was made known to the public by his wife. After some time the daughter of Indermal committed suicide. Since then A-3 Ramesh Khatri, his friends and the family members became hostile to his family. They used to threaten of giving lesson to him. Compromise talks had also taken place between the parties. PW. 7 Smt. Rambha is the mother of deceased Kamlesh. She stated that there is a house of Indermal adjacent to her house. She had seen A-3 Ramesh Khatri entering in the house of Indermal by jumping the wall in the night. She also stated that A-3 Ramesh was having illicit relations with Papudi the daughter of Indermal. She also stated that Indermal used to stay in Gujarat in connection with his job. A-3 Ramesh taking advantage of the same used to visit the house of Indermal and developed relations with Papudi. She disclosed about the visit of A-3 Ramesh in the house of Indermal to other neighbours. She was being beaten by some of the relatives of Ramesh and Indermal. After some time Papudi died consuming poison. Thereafter A-3 Ramesh threatened that he will finish her entire family. PW. 8 Hansraj stated that about two months back a Panchayat was convened, wherein incident of A-3 Ramesh entering in the house of Indermal was discussed. He also stated that it had become public that A-3 Ramesh was having illicit relations with the daughter of Indermal. The Statement of PW. 7 Smt. Rambha is corroborated by the statement of PW. 12 Deva Shanker, PW. 16 Smt. Asha and PW. 17 Daulat. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the relations between the family of Leeladhar and the appellants were hostile. Appellant Ramesh Khatri had threatened Leeladhar and his wife of finishing their family. Thus, the motive can be attributed to the appellants for committing murder of Kamlesh the son of PW. 17 Smt. Rambha. 20. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the three circumstances by cogent evidence. Appellant Ramesh Khatri had threatened Leeladhar and his wife of finishing their family. Thus, the motive can be attributed to the appellants for committing murder of Kamlesh the son of PW. 17 Smt. Rambha. 20. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the three circumstances by cogent evidence. The circumstances are of conclusive nature. Taking all the circumstances together we are of the view that reasonable inference can be drawn that it were the appellants who kidnapped and committed the murder of deceased Kamlesh. The trial Court has rightly found the charges levelled against appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt. 21. Consequently the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The appellants Prakash S/o Gauttam Chand and Ramesh S/o Dashrath Kumar Khatri are in Jail. They will serve out the remaining part of the sentence. The appellant Ramesh alias Papia S/o Bhanwarlal is on bail. He will surrender to the custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. The Judicial Magistrate, Barmer is directed to issue warrant of arrest against Ramesh @ Papia S/o Bhanwarlal and send him to jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.