Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1720 (RAJ)

Rajesh v. State of Rajasthan

2007-09-12

GUMAN SINGH, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
Judgment Guman Singh, J.-Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment dated 25.08.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas (Alwar), whereby Rajesh and Suresh, appellants herein, were convicted and sentenced as under : Under Section 302/34 IPC : to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 394/34 IPC : to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 201/34 IPC : to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 27.02.2001, a written report was lodged by Sarlaram S/o Foolaram Gujar, resident of village Tejpur at Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar whereby it was reported that on 22.02.2001, his brother Ramesh had gone to Sodawas by Tata Sumo (Jeep) DL 1 CE 5205 but he did not return. He was searched in all relations where he could be found but with no trace. So, a report about his disappearance was made to the police. On 26.02.2001, the local police sent an information that a dead body was lying in the mustard field at jungle of Rajwada. So, the informant along with Giraj, Sarpanch went with the police and recognised the dead body of Ramesh having ligature marks around the neck. The informant apprehended that Ramesh was put to death as a result of the conspiracy hatched by Prabhati S/o Moola, Banwari, Rameshwar, Jagdish, Ramsharan and Rohitash all son of Prabhati, Prakash S/o Banwari resident of Tejpur and Sukhveer Jat resident of Haryana State and settled at village Tejpur and Tata Sumo vehicle DL 1 CE 5205 was also taken away by them. 3. On the basis of the report, a case under Sections 302, 379/147 and 120-B/201 was registered and the investigation commenced. During the investigation, the Panchayatnama of dead body (Exhibit P. 1) was drawn. Site map of the place (Exhibit P. 3) of recovery of dead body from the mustard field of Moolaram, was prepared and photographs (Exhibit P. 11 to Exhibit P. 16) were taken. Post mortem (Exhibit P. 43) of the dead body was conducted. During the investigation, the Panchayatnama of dead body (Exhibit P. 1) was drawn. Site map of the place (Exhibit P. 3) of recovery of dead body from the mustard field of Moolaram, was prepared and photographs (Exhibit P. 11 to Exhibit P. 16) were taken. Post mortem (Exhibit P. 43) of the dead body was conducted. The death was found to be due to strangulation. The vehicle Tata Sumo was seized in the case on 04.07.2001 (Exhibit P. 18). Papers found in the vehicle were also seized (Exhibit P. 19). The accused Rajesh was arrested on 11.09.2001 (Exhibit P. 52). His test identification was conducted in the jail vide memo Exhibit P. 7 and Exhibit P. 9. Accused Rajesh led to the place where he had a halt at Dharamshala at Sodawas on 21.02.2001 (Exhibit P. 24). The register of the Dharamshala was seized (Exhibit P. 25). The cord used to strangulate deceased Ramesh was recovered from the jungle of Rajwada (Exhibit P. 26). Accused Rajesh also led discovery of the place where the vehicle Tata Sumo was abandoned (Exhibit P. 31). Accused Rajesh also led to the mustard field where the dead body of deceased Ramesh was thrown (Exhibit P. 22). He also led to the liquor shop and the hotel (Exhibit P. 23) where they purchased liquor and had their dinner on 21.02.2001. He also led to the place on Chironi road where deceased Ramesh was put to death by putting cord around his neck (Exhibit P. 28). Accused Rajesh also led to the recovery of number plate of Tata Sumo vehicle from his house (Exhibit P. 29). A diary belonged to accused Rajesh was recovered from his house in his presence vide Exhibit P. 31. Accused Rajesh also led to the place where a sky colour bag was purchased from Bawal Chowk Bus stand shop (Exhibit P. 20). 4. Accused Suresh was arrested on 112.2001 (Exhibit P. 21). The test identification of accused Suresh was held vide memo Exhibit P. 8, Exhibit P. 10 and Exhibit P. 42. He led the police to the Dharamshala where he stayed (Exhibit P. 47), the bus stand sodawas where the vehicle was taken on hire (Exhibit P. 46), place where deceased Ramesh was put to death (Exhibit P. 48) and place where the dead body was thrown (Exhibit P. 49). He led the police to the Dharamshala where he stayed (Exhibit P. 47), the bus stand sodawas where the vehicle was taken on hire (Exhibit P. 46), place where deceased Ramesh was put to death (Exhibit P. 48) and place where the dead body was thrown (Exhibit P. 49). He also led to the place where he had thrown the driving licence of the deceased near bus stand Silarpur on Ateli to Mahendragarh Road (Haryana) (Exhibit P. 50) but licence thrown was out found. 5. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. In due course, the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas (Alwar). Charges under Sections 302, 394, 201 and 120-B, IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 37 witnesses. In the statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants furnished no explanation except that they were not kept Baparda before test identification. They, however, produced no witness in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellants canvassed that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and in any event the circumstances taken to have been established against the appellants do not provide complete chain to bring home the guilt against the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy & Anr. vs. State of A.P., Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 and Chandran vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1978 SC 1574 , in support of their submissions. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor controverted the arguments advanced and has supported the Judgment of the learned trial Court. 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, before a person can be found to be guilty, it is essential that each one of the circumstances relied upon must be clearly established and the cumulative effect of such circumstances taken together must be such to exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, before a person can be found to be guilty, it is essential that each one of the circumstances relied upon must be clearly established and the cumulative effect of such circumstances taken together must be such to exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. In Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1388 , Honble Apex Court has laid down as under : "It is well settled that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction must satisfy three conditions : .(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; .(ii) those circumstances should be a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non-else, and it should also be in capable of explanation on any other hypotheses than that of the guilt of the accused". 8. On re-appraisal of the evidence, it is revealed that the deceased Ramesh aged 35 years belonged to village Tejpur and was the driver of the vehicle Tata Sumo (Jeep) DL 1 CE 5205 which was owned by him and his two brothers, this vehicle was plied as Taxi and for that purpose the vehicle used to be kept standing for booking at Sodawas Bus Stand where 40-50 such other vehicles used to be available. On the fateful day, i.e. 22.02.2001, the deceased had gone with the vehicle at about 11 Oclock in the morning and he did not return. He was searched by his family members at all the places of the relatives where he could be found and then Sarlaram (PW. 5), his brother made a report about his missing to the police. However, on 27.02.2001, the first information report (Exhibit P. 4) was lodged at police station Mundawar by Sarlaram (PW. 5) after recognising the dead body of Ramesh which was found lying in the jungle of village Rajwada. It is further revealed that initially the informant Sarlaram (PW. 5) apprehended that Prabhati, Banwari, Rameshwar, Jagdish, Ramsharan, Rohitash and Prakash Gurjar resident of Tajpur named in FIR (Exhibit P. 4), had committed the murder due to enmity. 5) after recognising the dead body of Ramesh which was found lying in the jungle of village Rajwada. It is further revealed that initially the informant Sarlaram (PW. 5) apprehended that Prabhati, Banwari, Rameshwar, Jagdish, Ramsharan, Rohitash and Prakash Gurjar resident of Tajpur named in FIR (Exhibit P. 4), had committed the murder due to enmity. But on investigation, it turned out that on the fateful day i.e. 22.02.2001, the vehicle was booked by two person for going to the village Chironi and the deceased was last seen with those two persons in the vehicle by Om Prakash (PW. 6), Subhram (PW. 10), Ameer Singh (PW. 11) and Inder Singh (PW. 12) who could even identify the persons who had hired the vehicle and were being taken to Chironi by the deceased Ramesh. The fact that the deceased had gone to Chironi on the vehicle being hired was further corroborated by Yadram (PW. 9) and Builu (PW. 14). We now proceed to consider the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. Evidence of Last Seen : 9. The first and foremost incriminating circumstance against the two accused pertains to the fact that they were last seen with the deceased on 22.02.2001 and thereafter the dead body of the deceased Ramesh was found on 26.02.2001. On evaluating the evidence on the point, it is revealed that Inder (PW. 12) is the witness who is resident of the village of the deceased and he saw that two boys coming from the side of Dharamshala (Inn) and had a talk with deceased Ramesh and he was told by Ramesh that he was going to Chironi along with both those persons. He also saw that one person was sitting on the front while the other was on rear seat and after 7 days he came to know that dead body of Ramesh was found near road in mustard field of Rajwada. The witness has identified both the accused in the Court as well as at the test identification conducted in jail. He has denied the suggestion that he had gone to police station to see the accused before test identification. He has further deposed that after his statement to the police, he did not talk to any body until he received a summon for going to attend the test identification parade. He has denied the suggestion that he had gone to police station to see the accused before test identification. He has further deposed that after his statement to the police, he did not talk to any body until he received a summon for going to attend the test identification parade. The police station of this witness was recorded during the investigation on 08.03.2001 well before the arrest of accused Rajesh on 06.09.2001 and Suresh on 111.2001. Nothing has been elicited in cross examination which could shatter the testimony of this witness. The testimony of the witness is quite natural and convincing as this witness had also given the details of the two persons as to how they looked like. The next witness on the point is Ameer Singh (PW. 11) who is resident of Sodawas. He also saw deceased Ramesh having talk with two accused for booking the vehicle for going to Chironi. He saw them speaking in Haryanwi style of language and one was on the front seat while the other one was on back seat. Then after 3-4 days, he came to know that the dead body of Ramesh was found in a mustard field of Rajwada. Alike Inder (PW. 12), this witness has also identified both the accused in the Court as well as in the test identification at jail vide memo Exhibit P. 9 and Exhibit P. 10 pertaining to accused Rajesh and Suresh, respectively. The police statement of this witness was also recorded during the investigation well before the arrest of the two accused persons who were arrested after more than six months of the incident and thus the testimony of this witness is quite convincing to prove the fact that the deceased was last seen by him as above. The next witness on the point Subharam (PW. 10) is resident of village Chironi. He was going from his village Chironi to bus stand and near the bus stand he saw the deceased standing with vehicle and on being asked he told him that he was going to his village Chironi. This witness saw the two boys sitting, one on the front and other on the back seat and after 4-5 days, he came to know that Ramesh was killed. He has identified both the accused Rajesh and Suresh in the test identification vide memo Exhibit P. 7 and Exhibit P. 8, respectively. This witness saw the two boys sitting, one on the front and other on the back seat and after 4-5 days, he came to know that Ramesh was killed. He has identified both the accused Rajesh and Suresh in the test identification vide memo Exhibit P. 7 and Exhibit P. 8, respectively. This witness has addressed the two accused by name in the Court and on being cross examined, he has replied that he came to know their names on that day (the day he deposed in the Court) only and that he had identified both the accused at the first sight on test identification. This witness has withstood the test of cross examination and from his testimony, it appeared that he was the person who had last seen the deceased with the two accused near bus stand Chironi on that day. Likewise, Om Prakash (PW. 6) is also resident of Chironi. According to him, at 11.30 in the day while he was going to Mundawar he saw deceased Ramesh standing with Tata Sumo in Chironi, he exchanged Ram Ram with him. He also saw the person sitting by his side. This witness has identified accused Ramesh in test identification at the jail vide Exhibit P. 7. In the cross examination, this witness has denied that he went to police station when the accused was arrested. Nothing has been elicited in cross examination which could shetter his testimony. The fact of conducting test identification on the application (Exhibit P. 32) of the SHO Mundawar and issuing the summons to the witnesses and conducting the test identification with due precautions has been proved by Suresh Prakash Bhatt (PW. 3), the then the Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, Alwar. Rajendra Prasad (PW. 37), SHO, Police Station Mundawar has also deposed that both the accused were kept Baparda on their arrest. 10. From the testimony of the aforementioned witnesses examined on the point it is established that on 22.02.2001, the two accused had booked the vehicle Tata Sumo DL 1 CE 5205 of the deceased Ramesh for Chironi and the deceased was last seen and thereafter he was not seen alive and the dead body of the deceased was found on 26.02.2001 from the mustard field in the jungle of village Rajawada and on post mortem the time of death found corresponding to the day the deceased disappeared. Death was homicidal : 11. Death was homicidal : 11. The post mortem of deceased Ramesh was conducted by the medical board consisting of three doctors and report Exhibit P. 43 was prepared by them. As per the testimony of Dr. Ramratan Singh (PW. 27) who was also member of the Board, the body was semi decomposed, wearing Kurta and Pyazama. Foul and unpleasant odour was coming out. Rigor mortis was positive on knee and elbow with post liquidity on back, shoulder and post aspect of thigh. Ligature mark was found lying traversely around 1 cm in breadth encircling the whole neck, blakish discoloration with prominent groove. There was marking of knot on nape of neck just at the mid line was found. The cause of death was found to be asphyxias due to strangulation. The ligature mark was anti mortem in nature and death time was within 24 to 120 hours. 12. Dr. Ramratan Singh (PW. 27) has been cross examined pertaining to the entry of time of death mentioned in the post mortem report Exhibit P. 43. A suggestion was made to him that the time of death was initially shown 72 hours which was later on made 120 hours on post mortem report Exhibit P. 43 but this has been candidly denied by this witness. On perusal of post mortem report Exhibit P. 43, it is revealed that the time has been further clarified by writing it in words. The time of death has been apparently based on condition of the dead body and in this case as the dead body was semi decomposed, rigor mortise was found positive on knee and elbow and post liquidity was found on back, shoulder and post aspect of thigh. The month of examination being February, a cold month of the year, the opinion of Medical Board who conducted autopsy on the dead body does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. Thus, the death of deceased Ramesh was found to be within 120 hours before the post mortem which was conducted on 27.02.2001 at 9.30 AM refers to the date of his disappearance on 22.02.2001 when he was last seen with appellants, provides for a strong circumstances to further eliminate any hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. Nature of weapon used : (Recovery of cord used for strangulation) 13. Nature of weapon used : (Recovery of cord used for strangulation) 13. It is undisputed that the death of the deceased driver Ramesh was due to strangulation as the ligature marks were lying traversely around 1 cm in breadth with prominent groove as per post mortem report (Exhibit P. 43). It shows that the assailants had apparently no weapon with them and a cord (string) was used to strangulate as the offenders were more than one so that the victim was over powered without much resistance without any other physical violence on the body. The manner in which the act is executed Is indicative of a modus operandi which is generally adopted where the driver is to be liquidated with minimum resistance with a motive to take hold of the vehicle as in the present case. 14. On the basis of disclosure statement of accused Rajesh (Exhibit P. 54) the cord made of cloth of Jeans Pant used for strangulation of the driver of the vehicle and thrown in Akra bush nearby the field where dead body of the driver was thrown, has been recovered at his instance from the jungle of village Rajwada vide Exhibit P. 23. Sadhuram (PW. 22) and the Investigation Officer, Rajendra Prasad (PW. 37) have supported the fact of aforesaid recovery. In this regard, learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the recovery of the cord was admittedly made from open field and as such no exclusive possession can be attributed to the accused, moreso, when the article recovered is not such which cannot be otherwise available. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument of the learned Counsel is not of much avail as the recovery of cord from the jungle of village Rajwada from the place nearby the field where the dead body of the driver of the vehicle was thrown after putting him to death by strangulation as the dead body was found with ligature mark around the neck, is such which provides a chain amounting to strong incriminating circumstance and as such the disclosure of the fact where the cord was thrown and recovery in consequence thereof , cannot be ordinarily belied on the assumption of invisible possibility of implantation. Motive-as circumstantial evidence : 15. Motive-as circumstantial evidence : 15. In the present case, the motive has been a main driving force for executing the crime and thus it h olds the key to solve the quiz. In the beginning, though informant Sarlaram (PW. 5), on coming to know about the murder of his brother sharply reacted that it could be due to enmity and named them in the FIR (Exhibit P. 4) who belonged to his village but later on investigation, it was found that the culprits were driven by the greed of taking hold of the vehicle by liquidating the driver as the vehicle was not found in the vicinity. Sarlaram (PW. 5) himself replied in cross examination that though he named certain person in the FIR on the basis of suspicion but he had suspected them of causing death but not of taking away the vehicle. So the missing of the vehicle form the place of occurrence or where the dead body was found in a strong circumstance indicative of the motive of the accused as the vehicle was seized in this case vide memo Exhibit P. 18 on 04.07.2001, which was initially seized under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code on 20.06.2001 by police station Bathda, District Bhiwani (Haryana). Thereafter, the same was seized in case No. 97 of 2001 under Section 411 IPC dated 01.07.2001, P.S. Bathda and then the vehicle was given on Supurdgi and was obtained in the present case as a case property on the basis of the order dated 04.07.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi-dadri, District Bhiwani. 16. In Udaipal Singh vs. The State of U .P., 1972 (4) SCC 142 , the Apex Court has held as under : "In cases where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong enough motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the record considered along with the explanation, if any, of the accused, exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit then the chain of evidence can be considered to be so complete as to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused. He may, in that event, safely be held guilty on such circumstantial evidence". He may, in that event, safely be held guilty on such circumstantial evidence". Recovery of Number Plate of the Vehicle : 17. Appellants Rajesh while in police custody made a disclosure statement that he could lead the recovery of number plates of vehicle Tata Sumo from his house and on that basis one number plate bearing number . . . 5205 (in Hindi) was recovered at his instance from his house. Rajendra (PW. 23) who is witness to the recovery memo has supported the fact of recovery and has clarified in the cross examination that the accused were inside his house at village Kamda and brought out the number plate. The making disclosure statement by the accused and consequent recovery of the number plate. In this regard, it has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the house was occupied by other members of the family as admitted by Rajendra Prasad (PW. 37) and as such the recovery cannot be said to be from the exclusive possession of the appellants. In the present case, the aforesaid argument is not of much avail as the number plate of the vehicle recovered at the instance of accused is not such an article which can be of common use and can in no way be linked with any other member of the family and the vehicle seized vide Exhibit P. 18 in this case was found without number plates, moreso the recovery of the number plate on disclosure statement of the accused is a circumstances which is to be used as a connecting link of chain between the other incriminating circumstances found established to connect the accused with the crime and as such the possession over the article cannot be attributed to any other member of the family. Stay at Dharamshala : 18. The accused Rajesh was arrested on 06.09.2001 by Rajendra Singh (PW. 37), SHO Mundawar and he made a disclosure statement (Exhibit P. 53) wherein he disclosed that he could take to the place Dharamshala (Inn) where he had a halt of preceding night of the day when he hired the vehicle Tata Sumo DL 1 CE 5205 for village Chironi before the driver of the vehicle was put to death. Accordingly, he led the police party to the Dharamshala at Sodawas and identified Prahlad (PW. 20) to whom he paid Rs. 30/-charges for stay. Accordingly, he led the police party to the Dharamshala at Sodawas and identified Prahlad (PW. 20) to whom he paid Rs. 30/-charges for stay. The memo Exhibit P. 24 to this effect was prepared and this fact has been corroborated by Prahlad (PW. 20), Manager of Dharamshala. The seizure memo (Exhibit P. 25) of the register of Dharamshala was separately prepared. Prahlad (PW. 20) has deposed in the Court that on 21.02.2001, he was Manager of the Dharamshala and there were three persons in Dharamshala. One person was resident of Sangoli and apart from him, there were two persons and they were Rajesh and another and they themselves made entry in the register and they went from there on the following morning and thereafter the police had come with two persons in connection with investigation and seized the register vide memo Exhibit P. 25. On cross examination, he expressed his inability to identify the person brought by the police. The prosecution has field to produce the register bearing the said entry in evidence. Though the register bearing the entry was sent to FSL for comparison of the handwriting of accused Rajesh with his handwriting found in his diary recovered from his house kept in self of the room which was bearing the name and address of the accused at page one and also contained some entries pertaining accounts and addresses. As per the FSL report, the disputed entry of the register of Dharamshala at Page No. 17 was compared with specimen handwriting Sections 1 to Section 24 and admitted handwriting of Rajesh marked A 1 to A 18 in pocket diary and one scientific examination with the help of stereo microscope, I.R., U.V. and other light examination of the documents, the disputed handwriting marked Q 1 was found to have written by the writer who wrote S 1 to S 24 and A 1 to A 18. The conclusion of the FSL report (Exhibit P. 56) was not found to have been proved in the case by the learned trial Judge on the ground that Tehsildar in whose presence, the specimen handwriting was taken down, was not produced as a witness. The conclusion of the FSL report (Exhibit P. 56) was not found to have been proved in the case by the learned trial Judge on the ground that Tehsildar in whose presence, the specimen handwriting was taken down, was not produced as a witness. We find that the prosecution has neither produced the register of Dharamshala nor the diary in the Court so to Assistant Commissioner cord an opportunity to the accused to cross examine on the point and as such the conclusion drawn in the FSL report is not of much avail to the prosecution. However, it may be noted that the disclosure of the fact by the accused Rajesh regarding having a night halt on 21.02.2001 preceding the day of occurrence at Dharamshala coupled with the statement of Prahlad (PW. 20), Manager of Dharamshala, it is revealed that the accused had night halt at the Dharamshala Sodawas on 21.02.2001, preceding the day of incident, which shows their presence in the vicinity of the place of occurrence though the accused Rajesh and Suresh both belonged to the State of Haryana and they have furnished no explanation about their presence. 19. The circumstances and manner in which the crime is committed in the instant case are such which rule out any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the appellants as the driver of the vehicle was put to death by none else than the occupants of the vehicle who had hired the vehicle to take hold of it after liquidating driver. The appellants did not give any explanation as to what happened next after the vehicle was hired by them and they were last seen with deceased and under what circumstances the deceased was put to death by strangulation that day as the body was found thrown in the mustard field. The facts which were especially in the knowledge of the appellants cold only be established by them. The appellants however did not choose to support any theory or hypothesis compatible with the innocence. In the absence of explanation by the appellants, the only possible inference is that the appellants alone and none else had committed the crime. 20. The facts which were especially in the knowledge of the appellants cold only be established by them. The appellants however did not choose to support any theory or hypothesis compatible with the innocence. In the absence of explanation by the appellants, the only possible inference is that the appellants alone and none else had committed the crime. 20. Vivan Bose J. In Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199 , lays down the legal principle underlying the shifting of burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act thus : "This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of what duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionate difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word especially stress that, it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge". 21. From the evidence discussed herein above, it is satisfactorily and conclusively proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. 22. The aforementioned circumstances found to be established against the appellants form a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellants but on the contrary the same are conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants and conclusively lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellants alone and none else had committed murder of Ramesh. 23. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellants fails and is hereby dismissed.