JUDGMENT 1. - Foreordained were the calamities for Income Tax Officer Bhawani Singh, who was stabbed to death on his way back home from Ajmer Club. Three persons were arraigned by the police for said murder but the trial Court convicted and sentenced only Varun Chaudhary (appellant in Appeal No. 935/2005) under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Other two co-accused viz., Sudhir @ Banti and Himmat Singh @ Bobby (respondents in State Appeal No. 798/2006) were however acquitted. 2. More details of the incident are these:- Bhawani Singh was inhabitant of Ajmer and on the date of incident was posted as ITO Jodhpur. For the last two weeks he was in Ajmer being a member of 'Search Party' which targeted various Kabadis (scrap dealers) of Ajmer. On the preceding day of the incident Bhawani Singh had gone to Jodhpur and came back on the day of incident at 12.30 PM. After taking some rest at his residence Bhawani Singh had joined 'search party'. Around 8 PM Bhawani Singh informed his son Ajeet Singh Manohar that he was at Ajmer Club and would return at 10 PM. Bhawani Singh however left Ajmer Club at 12.30 AM on the Motor Cycle of Vasudev who dropped him near Rico Watch Company. Thereafter Bhawani Singh was found lying injured near the house of Singhal ITO. He was removed to the Hospital where he was declared dead. Ajeet Singh Manohar submitted written report at Police Station Christanganj Ajmer on August 23, 2060 at 2 AM. On that report a case was registered under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 (Fast Track) Ajmer. Charges under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 31 witnesses. In the explanation under Section Cr.PC, the accused claimed innocence. One witness in support of defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions arrived at the conclusion as indicated herein above. 3. Death of Bhawani Singh undeniably homicidal in nature. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 31 witnesses. In the explanation under Section Cr.PC, the accused claimed innocence. One witness in support of defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions arrived at the conclusion as indicated herein above. 3. Death of Bhawani Singh undeniably homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem report (Ex.P-21) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body : 1. Incised wound 3cm x 1/2cm x muscle deep on left side of chin. 2. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left side of lower chest obliquely placed 8 cm below & medial to nipple between 6&7 ribs in the intercostal space, eclaptical in shape with clean cut margins. On dissection of chest the above wound No.2 is going downwards & backwards cutting skin, fascia intercostal muscle, margin of 6th rib pericardium & in any wall of right ventricle of heart up to its cavity means through and through the ant. wall measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in dimensions. The perciardium is full of partially clotted blood & left chest cavity full of partially clotted blood. In the opinion of Dr. P.K. Tiwari (P.W.7) the cause of death was shock as a result of cut in the right ventricle of heart. 4. Since there was no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution founded its case on circumstantial evidence. We have therefore to examine whether: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, have been cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellants; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellants and none else. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed before us. Before analysing the contentions, it will be appropriate to scan the evidence adduced at the trial. Accused Varun Chaudhary, Sudhir and Himmat Singh were respectively arrested vide Arrest Memos Ex.P-12, P-13 and P-14. Varun Chaudhary then gave information under Section 27 Evidence Act in regard to knife and clothes stained with blood. The information got recorded in the memo Ex.P-48 and pursuant to the information recovery got effected vide recovery memo Ex.P-7. Accused Varun Chaudhary, Sudhir and Himmat Singh were respectively arrested vide Arrest Memos Ex.P-12, P-13 and P-14. Varun Chaudhary then gave information under Section 27 Evidence Act in regard to knife and clothes stained with blood. The information got recorded in the memo Ex.P-48 and pursuant to the information recovery got effected vide recovery memo Ex.P-7. Accused Sudhir gave information about clothes and Motor Cycle allegedly used in commission of the crime. This information was recorded in the memo Ex.P-49 and pursuant to that cloth and motor, cycle were recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P-9. Moulds of tyres of motor cycle as well as tyres were seized vide memo Ex.P-10. Information given by accused Himmat Singh about his blood stained clothes was recorded in memo Ex.P-50. In pursuance of the said information recovery of blood stained clothes got effected vide recovery memo Ex.P-17. Vinnet Kothari Bansal 10 (Pw.26) proved the memos of information and recovery. We have through his testimony and we find that even after searching cross examination the defence is not able to shatter it. 6. It is contended on behalf of accused persons that recoveries of knife, clothes and other articles allegedly effected at the instance of accused is concocted and fabricated. The prosecution could not establish that the place from where alleged recovery got effected was exclusively owned and possessed by the accused persons. It is further urged that the trial court drew conclusion from inadmissible evidence. The circumstances considered by the trial court are not decisive to point to the involvement of the accused in the murder of deceased. Reliance is placed on (1) Trimbak v. State of MP ( AIR 1954 SC 39 ) , (2) Sayeed Moeen v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (2) Cr. L.R. Raj. 1615 , (3) Subhash Chand v. State of Raj. (2002) 1 SCC 702 , (4) Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 1 SCC 596 , (5) Vijendra v. State of Delhi 1997 (1) Crimes 158 (SC) and (6) State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh JT 2003 (Supp.2) SC 393 . 7. In order to adjudge the submissions when we look the material on record we find that the clothes stained with blood found on the person of deceased were recovered on August 23, 2000 at 10.25 AM by Sehdeo Kavia (PW.27) in the presence of Motbirs viz. Dharamveer (PW.29) and Bishan Singh (PW.1) vide Memo Ex.P-2. 7. In order to adjudge the submissions when we look the material on record we find that the clothes stained with blood found on the person of deceased were recovered on August 23, 2000 at 10.25 AM by Sehdeo Kavia (PW.27) in the presence of Motbirs viz. Dharamveer (PW.29) and Bishan Singh (PW.1) vide Memo Ex.P-2. Blood stained earth got lifted vide memo Ex.P-4. Site plan and other memos along with seizure memos have been proved by Sahdeo Kavia, Dharamveer and Bishan Singh. Packets E., B, C and D were sealed and sent to FSL for examination. Accused Varun Chaudhary was arrested on September 1, 2000 at 11.10 AM by Vinit Bansal in the presence of Mahaveer Singh (PW.10). On September 3, 2000 Varun Chaudhary gave information under Section 27 Evidence Act that the knife and clothes stained with blood were concealed by him in his rented room. Pursuant to information Vinit Kumar Bansal proceeded to house No. 208/50 pointed by Varun, the lock of house got opened and recovery of knife and clothes got effected in presence of Motbirs Bhagwan Singh and Madan Lal. 8. Bhanwar Singh (PW.9) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile but Madan Lal (PW. 25) categorically deposed that in his presence knife and clothes stained with blood got recovered at the instance of Varun Chaudhary and he put his signatures on recovery memo. Having carefully gone through entire evidence of Madan Lal, we find that he was an indendent witness and his testimony could not be shattered in the cross examination. 9. A look at the Recovery Memo Ex.P-7 goes to show that pursuant to information provided by Varun Chaudhary under Section 27 Evidence Act, police party along with Motbirs had gone to House No. 208/50 Nala Basti Ajmer. The house was found locked. Varun Chaudhary then took out the key from the place only known to him and got recovered knife, tea-shirt and lower stained with bloo, lying concealed on the store-rack under mattresses d and quilts. Relevant portion of recovery memo reads as under:- 359155 10. The house was found locked. Varun Chaudhary then took out the key from the place only known to him and got recovered knife, tea-shirt and lower stained with bloo, lying concealed on the store-rack under mattresses d and quilts. Relevant portion of recovery memo reads as under:- 359155 10. On the basis of disclosure statement of Himmat Singh @ Boby pant and shirt stained with blood got recovered from an iron-box kept under the cot in Railway Quarter No. 1895A in the presence of motbirs Laxman Singh and Kishan Gopal vide recovery memo Ex.P-17, which reads as under:- 359155 It also appears from the recovery memo that 'blood-stained' found on the clothes were marked as X3 and X4 and they were sealed. 11. At the instance of accused Sudhir Banti motor cycle RJ-01- 7M-0009, a lower (Trouser and T-Shirt got recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P-9 in the presence of Bhanwar Singh and Madan Lal. Lower (trouser) was marked as (I). T-shirt stained with blood was sealed in a packet and marked as (J). It also appears that in order to compare the moulds of tyre found at the place of occurrence, tyre of the motor cycle got detached and sealed in a packet which was marked as (H). Moulds of motor cycle found at the place of occurrence was lifted vide memo Ex.P-10 on September 3, 2000 with the help of plaster of paris and marked as Y2. 12. Mould of motor cycle lifted from the place of occurrence was compared with the tyre of motor cycle RJ-01-7M-0009 on November 22, 2001 in FSL. Report Ex.P-56 of the FSL reads as under : "The packet(s) one In number, marked as H was properly sealed and the impression of the seals tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded. The moulds - Two - in number marked Y1 and Y2 were received unsealed Description of Exhibits Returned 1. (c) Exhibit(s) not consumed. 2. Remanents of exhibit(s) are returned in - Three - packet(s) in/alongwith original packing/divisional packing with the seal impression. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN A PACKET(S) RECEIVED: (1) Mould Y/1 A plaster of paris mould of tyre impression allegedly lifted from the scene of occurrence which has been marked as exhibit Y/1-1 in this laboratory. (2) Mould Y/2 A plaster of pans mould of tyre impression which has been marked as exhibit Y/2-1 in this laboratory. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN A PACKET(S) RECEIVED: (1) Mould Y/1 A plaster of paris mould of tyre impression allegedly lifted from the scene of occurrence which has been marked as exhibit Y/1-1 in this laboratory. (2) Mould Y/2 A plaster of pans mould of tyre impression which has been marked as exhibit Y/2-1 in this laboratory. (Control) (3) Packet H It contained a tyre along with tube allegedly of the motor cycle RJ-01-7M-0009. The tyre and the tube have been marked as exhibits H-1 and H-2 respectively in this laboratory. RESULT OF EXAMINATION A tread design of tyre reproduced on the moulds, exhibits Y/1 and Y/2-1 are tally with a portion of the tyre, exhibit H-1 B." Dr. Shailendra Jha, Asstt. Director FSL (PW.31) deposed that tread design of tyre reproduced on the moulds, exhibits Y/1 and Y/2-1 are tallied with a portion of the tyre. 13. Section 27 of Evidence Act lays down an exception to the rule that a confession made by an accused person whilst he is in custody must be excluded from evidence and permits the admission of such a confession under the conditions prescribed by it. The law in India on the subject dealt with in Section 27 is wider than the common law in England. It appears from the provisions of Section 27 that it has been taken bodily from the English law. In both the laws there is a greater solicitude for a person who makes a statement at a stage when the danger in which he stands has not been brought home to him then for one who knows of the danger. In English Law, the caution gives him a necessary warning and in India the fact of his being in custody of a police officer serves the purpose. 14. Section 27 seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given some guarantee is afforded thereby than the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. It is not correct to presume that information given by the accused under Section 27 is compelled testimony, so as to attract Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 15. It is not correct to presume that information given by the accused under Section 27 is compelled testimony, so as to attract Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 15. In (7) Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) [AIR 1979 SC 4001 the Apex Court held that the evidence of circumstances simpliciter that an accused led a police officer and pointed out the, place where weapon was found hidden, would be admissible as conduct, under Section 8, irrespective of whether any statement made by him contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27. 16. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vijendra v. State of Delhi (supra) had occasion to consider Section 27 of Evidence Act and observed as under:- (Para 17) "Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording the evidence of the above witnesses is that of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Evidence was led through the above three police witnesses that in consequence of information received from the three appellants on June 30, 1992 they discovered the place where the dead body of Khurshid was thrown. As already noticed, the dead body of Khurshid was recovered on June 27, 1992 and therefore, the question of discovery of the place where it was thrown thereafter could not arise. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act if an information given by the accused leads to the discovery of a fact which is the direct outcome of such information then only it would be evidence but when the fact has already been discovered as in the instant case evidence could not be led in respect thereof." 17. In State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh (supra) the Supreme Court indicated as under:- (Para 21) "......Since the dead body was recovered on the basis of information already known, Section 27 of the Evidence Act has no application. As observed by this Court in Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra ( AIR 1956 SC 217 ) if a recovery of the incriminating articles alleged to have been made by the accused while in custody is inadmissible in evidence if the police already knew where they were hidden. That takes the case out of the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 18. That takes the case out of the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 18. In (8) Rammi v. State of MP (1999) 8 SCC 649 , the Apex Court held thus:- (Paras 11 & 12) "Reading the recovery of weapons, the prosecution could utilise statements attributed to the accused on the basis of which recovery of certain weapons was effected. Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits so much of information, which lead to the discovery of a fact to be admitted in evidence. Here the fact discovered by the police was that the accused had hidden the blood stained weapons. In that sphere what could have been admitted in evidence is only that part of the information which the accused had furnished to the police officer and which led to the recovery of the weapons. "True, such information is admissible in evidence, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but admissibility alone would not render the evidence, pertaining to the above information, reliable. While testing the reliability of such evidence the Court has to see whether it was voluntarily stated by the accused." 19. In (9) Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249 the Apex Court interpreted Section 27 of Evidence Act thus : "A fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 must refer to a material fact to which the information directly elates. In order to render the information admissible the fact discovered must be relevant and must have been such that it constitutes the information through which the discovery was made. What should be discovered is the material fact and the information that is admissible is that which has caused that discovery so as to connect the information and the fact with each other as the 'cause and effect' that information which does not distrincity connect with the fact discovered or that portion of the information which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible under Section 27 and cannot be proved. The concealment of the fact which is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information and lends assurance that the information was true. The concealment of the fact which is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information and lends assurance that the information was true. No witness with whom some material fact, such as the weapon of murder, stolen property or other incriminating article is not hidden, sold or kept and which is unknown to the police can be said to be discovered as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused. What makes the information leading to the discovery of the witness admissible is the discovery from him of the thing sold to him or hidden or kept with him which the police did not know until the information was furnished to them by the accused." 20. In (10) Ghanshyam Das v. State of Assam (2005) 13 SCC 387 the Supreme Court held that evidence regarding pointing the place where weapon was thrown and its recovery can be looked into to throw light on the conduct of accused under Section 8. It was observed as under : (Para 5) "Another incriminating which corroborates the case of the prosecution is that the appellant led the 10 P.W.12 to Kharbhanga riverside and point out the place where he had thrown away the Khukri. According to the evidence of PW.12 the 10 and PW.6, the Khukri was recovered from the river with the help of a diver. Though both the courts have eschewed this circumstance from consideration on the giound that no information was recorded by PW.12 the I.O. so as to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act, we are of the view that the evidence of PW.12 and PW.6 to the effect that the accused led them to the spot and pointed out the place where the Khukri was thrown which fact stands confirmed by its recovery, can be looked into to throw light on the conduct of the accused under Section 8 of the Evidence Act." 21. In addition to the evidence of recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused persons, the prosecution has examined Pawan Kumar, Horne Guard (PW.3) and Pooran Singh Constable (PW.6) to establish the fact that two motor cycles passed around 12 0' clock in the night near Rico Watch Factory. Pawan Kumar in his deposition stated that he was assigned night duty in the month of August, 2000. Pawan Kumar in his deposition stated that he was assigned night duty in the month of August, 2000. Around 12 in the night while he and constable Pooran had reached near Vaishali Nagar Tiraha he saw two persons sitting on a Motor Cycle which proceeded towards Rico Watch Factory. After about five minutes another motor cycle came from the side of Rico Watch Factory. He saw three persons sitting on the Motor Cycle. Pawan Kumar Home Guard however could not identify the persons sitting on the motor cycles. Pooran Singh (Pw.6) deposed that on August 22, 2000 he was posted as Constable in the Police Station Kishanganj in the night around 12 while he was patrolling along with Pawan Kumar Home Guard near Vasishali Nagar Firaha he saw two persons coming on a motor cycle and proceeded towards Rico Road. He could identify Bhawani Singh, who was sitting on the rear seat of motor cycle. After some time a motor cycle Suzuki came rushing from the side of Rico Road. Three persons were sitting on the motor cycle. By using whistle he made attempt to get the motor cycle halted, but it did not stop. He could only notice number 9' out of entire entire series of numbers. Vasudev (Pw.5) stated that Bhawani Singh came with him on his motor cycle from Ajmer Club. They proceeded from the club at 11.40 PM. Bhawani Singh got down from the motor cycle near Rico Watch Company and he (Vasudev) went to his house. Vineet Kumar Bansal 10 (Pw.26) and Sahdev Kavia 10 (PW.7) proved the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of all the three accused. 22. We cannot approach the action of Investigating Officers with initial distrust. The investigating Officers had no enmity with the accused persons and recovery at the instance of accused persons gets support from the testimony of independent person viz. Madan Lal (PW.25). Even if independent person fails to support the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused, it cannot be presumed that recovery is untrustworthy. The Supreme Court in (11) State Govt. Madan Lal (PW.25). Even if independent person fails to support the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused, it cannot be presumed that recovery is untrustworthy. The Supreme Court in (11) State Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 indicated in para 21 thus : "It is for the accused, through cross examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the Police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally apporable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions." 23. The knife recovered at the instance of Varun Chaudhary was sealed in a packet marked 'F, T-shirt and lower stained with blood were sealed in a packet marked 'G'. Pant and shirt stained with blood got recovered at the instance of accused Himmat Singh @ Bobby were sealed in a packet marked 'K'. Lower and T-shirt recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sudhir @ Banti were sealed in a packet marked J'. Blood smeared Damar was sealed in a packet marked W. Control Damar was sealed in another packet marked 'B' and T-shirt, Baniyan and pant of the deceased stained with blood were sealed in a packet marked 'E' 24. As per FSL Report (Ex.P-54) the blood stains on serological examination on blood Smeared Damar, T-shirt, Baniyan and pant of the deceased Bhawani Singh, knife, T-shirt and lower of Varun Chaudhary and shirt of Himmat Singh @ Bobby were found to be stained with 'B' group of blood of human origin. A look at another FSL report (Ex.P-55) demonstrates that T-shirt of Sudhir @ Banti was found to be stained with 'B' group of blood of Human origin. It thus appears that the blood of the deceased was found on the knife and clothes recovered at the instance of accused Varun Chaudhary, Himmat Singh @ Bobby and Sudhir @ Banti. 25. A look at another FSL report (Ex.P-55) demonstrates that T-shirt of Sudhir @ Banti was found to be stained with 'B' group of blood of Human origin. It thus appears that the blood of the deceased was found on the knife and clothes recovered at the instance of accused Varun Chaudhary, Himmat Singh @ Bobby and Sudhir @ Banti. 25. The prosecution is able to establish following circumstances : (i) At the time of incident two motor cycles were seen near Rico-road. On one motor cycle deceased Bhawani Singh was sitting on the rear seat and on another motor cycle three persons were sitting. (ii) Constable Pooran Singh had blown the whistle to get the motor cycle, on which three persons were sitting, halted but it did not stop. Pooran Singh could only notice that motor cycle was Suzuki and one of its number was Y. (iii) Knife and clothes stained with 'B' group blood got recovered at the instance of accused Varun Chaudhary, Himmat Singh @ Bobby and Sudhir @ Banti. (iv) Clothes of the deceased were also found stained with 'B' group blood. (v) Recovery at the instance of accused persons got effected from the places that were only known to the accused persons. (vi) Motor Cycle bearing No. RJ-01-7M-0009 got recovered at the instance of accused Sudhir @ Banti. Tyre and Tube of the motor cycle got detached and sealed. A plaster of paris mould of tyre impression was lifted from the scene of occurrence. Tread design of tyre reproduced on the moulds got tallied with a portion of the tyre of motor cycle seized at the instance of Sudhir @ Banti. 26. Placing reliance on (12) Malaram v. State [1984 Cr LR (Raj.) 421] learned Senior Counsel canvassed that the recovery of blood stained articles can be used only to corroborate the other evidence. It cannot in itself prove the case of the prosecution and does not connect the accused with the commission of offence. 27. We do not dispute this legal proposition but in our opinion the instant case is not founded solely on the recovery of blood stained articles. As already noticed there are other circumstances also that connect the accused with the crime. 28. 27. We do not dispute this legal proposition but in our opinion the instant case is not founded solely on the recovery of blood stained articles. As already noticed there are other circumstances also that connect the accused with the crime. 28. The other contention raised on behalf of accused persons was that since the recovery of incriminating articles got effected from the places accessible to other, it vitiates the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. We find no substance in this submissions. As earlier noticed the recovery of knife and clothes stained with blood got effected from the places that were known alone to the accused persons. The Supreme Court in (13) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh (1999 Cr LJ 2025) held as under : (Para 26) "There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible of recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open-or accessible to others". It is fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating articles was made from a place which is open or accessible to others it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried on the main road-side or it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the articles would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hide it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not, but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others. (Emphasis Supplied) 29. From the facts established we find that the circumstantial evidence in the instant case does not fall short of the required standard of proof. The circumstances so established are consistent only with the guilt of accused Varun Chaudhary, Sudhir @ Banti and Himmat Singh @ Bobby and inconsistent with their innocence. All the circumstances exclude with certainty the possibility of guilt of any person than the three accused persons. The circumstances so established are consistent only with the guilt of accused Varun Chaudhary, Sudhir @ Banti and Himmat Singh @ Bobby and inconsistent with their innocence. All the circumstances exclude with certainty the possibility of guilt of any person than the three accused persons. Learned trial Judge in our opinion committed illegality in acquitting the accused Himmat Singh @ Bobby and Sudhir @ Banti. There is, in our view, no justification for the trial court in jettisoning the cogent evidence of a conclusive nature on mere conjectures and on the omnibus ground. Possibility that all the three accused had gone to the scene of occurrence on a motor cycle and committed crime, cannot be ruled out. 30. As a result of the above discussion, we dispose of the instant matters in the following terms : (i) Appeal of appellant Varun Chaudhary (bearing No. 935/2005) stands dismissed and his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are maintained. (ii) Appeal preferred by State of Rajasthan (bearing No.798/2006) is allowed and finding of acquittal rendered by learned trial judge in favour of accused respondents Sudhir @ Banti and Himmat Singh @ Bobby is set aside and they are convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Accused Sudhir @ Banti and Himmat Singh @ Bobby are on bail, their bails bonds stand cancelled and they shall be taken in custody forthwith. (iii) Impugned judgment of learned Trial Judge stands modified as indicated above. Appeal No. 935/05 Dismissed. Appeal No. 798/06 Allowed. *******