Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2106 (RAJ)

Shyam Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2008-09-08

C.M.TOTLA, PRAKASH TATIA

body2008
Hon ble TATIA, J.—These appeals have been preferred by appellants to challenge the judgment of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur delivered in Sessions Case No.223/01 (62/2000)46/2000. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.763/2003 has been preferred by Shyam Lal, whereas D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No.709/2005 has been received through jail on behalf of convict-appellant Jetha Ram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 347/12003 has been preferred by appellant Gajendra. All these three appellants along with one accused Kewal Chand were charged for offences under Sections 364, 302, 394 and Section 201, IPC. Appellant Shyam Lal and Gajendra have been convicted for offence under Sections 364, 302, 394 and 201, IPC and have been sentenced as under:- Jetha Ram, Shyam Lal Gajendra: (1) u/s 302, IPC Life and imprisonment fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to undergo one year s R.I. (2) u/s 394, IPC 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.200/-, in default thereof, to undergo six months R.I. (3) u/s 201, IPC Three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default thereof,three months R.I. (4) u/s 364, IPC Two year s R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default thereof, to undergo three months R.I. The accused Kewal Chand was acquitted for offence under Sections 302, 394 and 201, IPC by giving benefit of doubt, however, he too has been convicted for offence under Section 364, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo two year s R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof, to undergo three months R.I. 2. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are that according to complainant Shokat Khan, he engaged Mehar Deen as driver in his jeep on 24.9.2000 and handed over the jeep to said driver Mehar Deen. Complainant Sokat Khan thereafter went to Ajmer for pilgrimage and came to his village on 30.9.2000. He did not found driver Mehar Deen and his jeep, then he enquired and when he could not find the driver Mehar Deen and his jeep, he submitted a report(Ex.P.63) in Police Station, Nagaur on 1.10.2000 that his driver and jeep are not found. Complainant Sokat Khan thereafter went to Ajmer for pilgrimage and came to his village on 30.9.2000. He did not found driver Mehar Deen and his jeep, then he enquired and when he could not find the driver Mehar Deen and his jeep, he submitted a report(Ex.P.63) in Police Station, Nagaur on 1.10.2000 that his driver and jeep are not found. On the basis of said report, Rojnamcha report (Ex.P.64) was registered, then the complainant submitted another report Ex.P.4 on 2.10.2000 at 5 p.m. at Police Station, Nagaur, wherein he stated that on enquiry at Basni Jeep Stand of Nagaur, he was told by Munir Khan s/o Nasir Khan and Babu Khan s/o Peer Khan that his jeep RJ 21 C 6064 was hired by accused Jetha Ram, Kewal Chand,Shyam Lal and Gajendra at 9-10 a.m. on 25.9.2000 and was taken from there with driver Mehar Deen. Since then they have not seen Mehar Deen or complainant s jeep. In the FIR (Ex.P.4), the complainant also stated that he came to know from the Police Station, Deedwana that complainant s jeep has been seized by the police as it was lying abandoned in the town of Deedwana. The complainant stated in report Ex.P.4 that he has doubt that Mehar Deen might have been killed. On the basis of above report, formal FIR Ex.P.5 was registered and investigation started. The accused Jetha Ram, Shyam Lal and Gajendra were arrested on the same day, i.e. on 2.10.2000 itself and their arrest memos Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 were prepared on the same day, i.e. on 2.10.2000. The informations were given under Section 27, Evidence Act by Gajendra(Ex.P.67), Shyam Lal (Ex.P.68) and Jetha Ram (Ex.P.69). The informations from all the three accused is verbatim same, which is as under:- ^^fd eSaus esgjnhu S/o len [kka tkfr dk;e[kkuh eqlyeku fuoklh Mwdkslh thi MªkbZoj dh yk k dks xkao ikapyk fl)k ds vxw.kh rjQ eqjfM;k lMd ds ikl ,d iMry dqvk esa Mkyh gS ftl dqvk dks eSa lkFk pydj crk lerk gwWA** 3. Accused Jetha Ram gave said information Ex.P.69 at 10.40 p.m., Shyam Lal gave information at 10.50 p.m. and Gajendra gave information at 11 p.m. on the same day, i.e. 2.10.2000. Accused Jetha Ram gave said information Ex.P.69 at 10.40 p.m., Shyam Lal gave information at 10.50 p.m. and Gajendra gave information at 11 p.m. on the same day, i.e. 2.10.2000. It will be relevant that Kewal Chand was arrested on 4.10.2000 and his information under Section 27, Evidence Act also has been recorded but on 5.10.2000, however, this information is also in the same language, as was given by other three accused who were arrested three days before the arrest of accused Kewal Chand and this information of Kewal Chand (Ex.P.66) has been recorded inspite of the fact that the police already had knowledge about the fact stated by the other accused from 2.10.2000 at least. All the three accused were taken to spot, where they pointed out about well where body of deceased was dropped by them. For this, memos Ex.P.12, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 for Jetha Ram, Shyam Lal and Gajendra were prepared. On 3.10.2000, the dead body from the well was recovered for which memo Ex.P.13 was prepared. The dead body was identified as of deceased Mehar Deen. His body was sent for post-mortem and post-mortem report Ex.P.20 was obtained. 4. More informations under Section 27, Evidence Act were given by Kewal Chand (Ex.P.70), by Gajendra (Ex.P.71), by Jetha Ram (Ex.P.73) and by Shyam Lal (Ex.P.74). It will be worthwhile to mention here that as per Ex.P.74 dated 4.10.2000, appellant Shyam Lal informed that the jeep RJ-21-C-6064 has been left near Ram temple in Deedwana town and he can show the place where the jeep was left by them. It is relevant that the said jeep was already came in the custody of the police on 1.10.2000 as it was already found by the police lying abandoned and was seized under Section 25 of the Police Act. It is said that the tape-recorder from the jeep was taken out and for that tape-recorder, accused-appellant Jetha Ram gave information under Section 27, Evidence Act (Ex.P.73) and in pursuance of that information, a tape-recorder was recovered for which recovery memo Ex.P.11 was prepared. Jetha Ram gave further information under Section 27, Evidence Act on 6.10.2000 (Ex.P.72) about the driving license of deceased, in pursuance of which the driving licence was recovered on 6.10.2000, for which recovery memo Ex.P.55 was prepared. Jetha Ram gave further information under Section 27, Evidence Act on 6.10.2000 (Ex.P.72) about the driving license of deceased, in pursuance of which the driving licence was recovered on 6.10.2000, for which recovery memo Ex.P.55 was prepared. The accused gave information under Section 27, Evidence Act that he sold the jack of the jeep and this information was given by accused Kewal Chand on 5.10.2000, in pursuance of which, jeep was recovered and recovery memo Ex.P.3 was prepared. Appellant Gajendra gave information on 6.10.2000 about the key of the jeep (Ex.P.71) and got it recovered, for which recovery memo Ex.P.52 was prepared on 5.10.2000. Kewal Chand also gave information about well where the body was thrown and that information under Section 27, Evidence Act dated 5.10.2000 is Ex.P.66 and accused Kewal Chand was taken to the spot for site verification, for which report Ex.P.17 was prepared. 5. The site was inspected. The photographs of the body were taken. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter, after completing all the necessary i formalities, challan was filed and the case was committed [he court where charges referred above were framed against the appellants. The accused-appellants denied the charges and sought trial. The prosecution produced 33 witnesses and got the relevant document exhibited which are 76 in number. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. All the accused denied the allegations and stated that they are innocent and they have wrongly been implicated. 6. The trial court relied upon the statement of complainant Shokat (PW-21) and held that deceased Mehar Deen was engaged by complainant PW-21 Shokat for driving his jeep from 24.9.2000. The complainant Shokat handed oven jeep to his driver Mehar Deen and left for Ajmer for pilgrimage. When Shokat came from Ajmer and found that neither jeep nor the driver is available, then he submitted report in the Police Station, Nagaur (Ex.P.63) to inform that his driver Mehar Deen is missing with jeep of the complainant. Then he came to know from the witnesses Munir Khan (PW-17) and Babu Khan (PW-26) that accused-appellant took the jeep on hire and thereafter neither the jeep nor deceased driver Mehar Deen were seen by any body. The accused failed to account for disappearance of the deceased Mehar Deen. Then he came to know from the witnesses Munir Khan (PW-17) and Babu Khan (PW-26) that accused-appellant took the jeep on hire and thereafter neither the jeep nor deceased driver Mehar Deen were seen by any body. The accused failed to account for disappearance of the deceased Mehar Deen. The trial court relied upon the Extra-judicial confession of the accused of appellant Gajendra, relying upon the statement of PW-16 Gani Khan and extra-judicial confession of appellant Shyam Lal relying upon the statement of PW-21 Sabir Khan and also found the recovery of the articles referred above, sufficient circumstantial evidence against the appellant and convicted and sentenced the appellants for the punishment referred above. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire story is concocted and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that according to first report Ex.P.63 dated 1.10.2000, Mehar been was appointed driver by the complainant on 24.9.2000 and thereafter, he left for Ajmer and came back only on 30.9.2000 to his residence. According to prosecution witness, Munir Khan and Babu Khan, the accused took the complainant s jeep on hire on 25.9.200C and the victim was last seen with accused on 25.9.2000. Whereas the complainant Shokat s family members admitted before the Investigating Officer PW-31 Tejpal Singh that after 25.9.2000 the idriver Mehar Deen came back at the residence of the Shokat in the night. Therefore, it is clear that deceased Mehar Deen was seen alive and alone after 25.9.2000 by other persons and was not lastly seen with the accused. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution that deceased Mehar Deen was last seen with four accused, falls to the ground and has been belied by the statement of the Investigating Officer PW-31 Tejpal Singh. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there are only two witnesses, PW-17 Munir Khan and PW-26 Babu Khan, who stated that all the four accused negotiated with driver Mehar Deen for taking on hire the jeep in question and the complainant and all the witnesses are of same religion and further there is no corroborative evidence. It is also submitted that even if driver Mehar Deen was appointed as driver for jeep by the complainant on 24.9.2000 and jeep was taken on hire by some persons at jeep stand of Deedwana on 25.9.2000, then the body of the victim was found much before the arrest of the deceased as it became known to the entire village that the body of some one is lying in the well. The information alleged to have been given by the appellant under Section 27, Evidence Act, so far as admitting commission of offence is (Concerned, is not admissible in evidence. The place 11 where the body was and it was whose body, was known to every body including the Investigating Officer, therefore, any alleged information given by the appellant, do not fall in the category of information covered under Section 27, Evidence Act. Under Section 27, Evidence Act, all the information admissible in evidence, is the information which was not in the knowledge of Investigating Agency and the recovery which is made in pursuance of that information. Same is the position about recovery of jeep. The jeep was found abandoned and it was brought in the Police Station, Deedwana, much before the accused-appellants were arrested. It is also submitted that the recovery of jack of the jeep at the instance of accused Kewal Chand was not believed by the trial court. The other recoveries are of driving license from appellant Jetha Ram (Ex.P.72 and Ex.P.55) and recovery of key from appellant Gajendra (Ex.P.71 and Ex.P.52) are of no consequence, as those recoveries have been concocted to implicate the appellants. It is submitted that according to the prosecution, the motive was to take the jeep for obvious reason, sale and the jeep was found abandoned and was not sold by the appellants, then in that situation, how any question could arise for keeping the key of the jeep by Gajendra and driving license by Jetha Ram and selling of jack by Kewal Chand etc. It appears that the prosecution, to give strength to their absolutely false case, framed the story of recovery of such insignificant articles from the appellants. It is also submitted that the story of prosecution deserves to be rejected, being highly improbable. 8. It appears that the prosecution, to give strength to their absolutely false case, framed the story of recovery of such insignificant articles from the appellants. It is also submitted that the story of prosecution deserves to be rejected, being highly improbable. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi vs. State of Maharashtra (1980 SCC (Cri.) 261), in support of his contention that the accused could not have been convicted on the basis of victim s last seen with the appellants, when one of the accused-appellants has been acquitted by the trial court even when the same set of evidence which is treated against the appellants, was for the acquitted accused. It is also submitted that Hon ble the Apex Court held that where the accused and the deceased were last seen together and thereafter, accused came back and gave an evasive reply about the whereabouts of the deceased, then that circumstance is ordinarily incriminating but the circumstance would cease to be incriminating where another accused who also accompanied the deceased besides the accused but that accused was later acquitted by the courts the remaining accused cannot be convicted. It is also submitted that once the prosecution case about last seen is rejected for one accused then it is liable to be rejected for other accused in a case where allegation is that all the accused were together with the deceased at the relevant time. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1982 SC 1157 ) and submitted that in the present case, there is no positive motive and also there is no positive evidence about the probable time of death of victim and there was long gap between the accused being seen in the company of deceased at the time of death of the victim, then during this period, many more persons might have come in between. Taking this situation in account, Hon ble the Apex Court held that it is unsafe to convict the accused in that fact situation. 9. Taking this situation in account, Hon ble the Apex Court held that it is unsafe to convict the accused in that fact situation. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that it has been alleged that the key of the jeep was recovered from appellant Gajendra, whereas the police found the jeep abandoned with one key, for which it has been mentioned that that key was not original key. It is submitted that the jeep was started by the Investigating Agency and was taken to Police Station, which of the key was the original key of the vehicle, has not been proved by the prosecution and mere mentioning of the prosecution in the seizure memo of jeep that in the jeep which was lying abandoned, had key in it but that key was not original key, is of no significance. Rather say, that evidence clearly shows that the original key was in the jeep when it was left abandoned and the key which alleged to have been recovered from the accused, is not the key of the jeep in question as it was never tested and proved before the Court, that key which was recovered from one of the accused, can start the jeep, much less to prove that the produced as recovered key from the accused, was original key of the jeep. It is also submitted that it was the duty of the accused Kewal Chand also who has been acquitted from charge under Section 302/34 or 149 IPC, to disclose the whereabouts of the victim, as accused Kewal Chand was also found guilty for commission of offence under Section 364, IPC, then he was also the person last seen with the victim. How and where the accused Kewal Chand separated from the appe-llants, for that no evidence has been led by the prosecution, therefore, it cannot be said that the victim remained with the appellants and not with accused Kewal Chand. 10. The learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses PW-17 Munir Khan and PW-26 Babu Khan, who saw all the four accused with deceased Mehar Deen on 25.9.2000 and thereafter, no body saw Mehar Deen. The accused who were seen last with the victim, failed to give any explanation about the whereabouts of the victim. The accused who were seen last with the victim, failed to give any explanation about the whereabouts of the victim. The two accused confessed it before the witnesses about their commission of offence and there is no enmity of these witnesses with the appellants accused and, therefore, the trial court rightly relied upon the extra-judicial confession. It is also submitted that the key was recovered from one of the accused, which was duly identified by the complainant, as it had identification symbol. It is also submitted that the original key was found from the accused and the key was found in the jeep when it was recovered on finding lying on road abandoned but that key was not the original key. It is also submitted that even if motive is not proved, even then if other evidence connecting the accused with the crime is available, the accused can be convicted. It is also submitted that the statement of Investigating Officer has been misread and in fact the Investigating Officer never said that deceased Mehar Deen was seen by any body after 25.9.2000. Neither Investigating Officer saw the victim Mehar Deen after 25.9.2000 nor any witnesses said so. It is also submitted that complete chain of events connecting the appellants with the crime, has been proved. It is also submitted that Kewal Chand was acquitted for the charge under Section 302, IPC, because benefit was given to him. He was held guilty for committing offence under Section 364, IPC which also proved that all the four accused took the jeep on hire and took the driver with them and killed the driver and took away the jeep. 11. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. We may recapitulate the facts in brief. The first report of the complainant is Ex.P.63 informing the police that his driver and jeep are missing. This report is dated 10.2000. The complainant submitted another report Ex.p.4 on 2.10.2000 wherein he disclosed that on enquiry from two persons Munir Khan and Babu Khan, he found four accused hired the jeep of the complainant after negotiating with the driver Mehar Deen and took the jeep. He also stated that the jeep has already been seized by the Police Station; Deedwana,(before lodging FIR Ex.P.4) as it was found lying-abandoned by the police of Police Station, Deedwana. He also stated that the jeep has already been seized by the Police Station; Deedwana,(before lodging FIR Ex.P.4) as it was found lying-abandoned by the police of Police Station, Deedwana. Therefore, the first question is whether Mehar Deen was appointed as driver for his vehicle, for that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of complainant Shokat (PW-2) on this issue. For hiring of the jeep by all the four accused is concerned, there is evidence of these two witnesses PW-17 Munir Khan and PW-26 Babu Khan. Both the above witnesses stated that they were knowing all the four accused-appellants. In their presence, the accused-appellants negotiated with the driver Mehar Deen for hiring the jeep in question and hired the jeep for going to Panchla Siddha and went in the jeep. From cross-examination of these two witnesses, their testimony has not been shattered in any manner, therefore, it is proved that these four accused took the jeep on hire on 25.9.2000 and Mehar Deen was the driver. The victim Mehar Deen left the place with all the four accused on 25.9.2000 is also proved. 13. The next question is whether 25.9.2000 was the last date on which the victim Mehar Deen was seen alive and was seen alive in the company of the accused-appell-ants or he was seen by any body else alive subsequent to seeing by said witnesses PW-17 Munir Khan and PW-26 Babu Khan. The investigating officer PW-31 Tejpal Singh in his statement, stated that during investigation Shokat Ali-Complainant, the owner of the jeep told that his family members informed him that Mehar Deen came back to his house on one night, obviously it could have been only after 25.9.2000. The investigating officer PW-31 Tejpal Singh in his statement, stated that during investigation Shokat Ali-Complainant, the owner of the jeep told that his family members informed him that Mehar Deen came back to his house on one night, obviously it could have been only after 25.9.2000. The complainant PW-2 Shokat, though in his statement in court, stated that he left for Ajmer on 24.9.2000 and came back from Ajmer on 29.9.2000 at 10 p.m. and on his enquiry, he was informed by his family members that the jeep came to his house on 24.9.2000 and thereafter it was not brought to the house of the complainant, but in his police statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex.D.1), he stated that on 25.9.2000, he was to goto Ajmer, therefore, he contacted the victim Mehar Deen at his residence for driving the jeep of the complainant, upon which the victim Mehar Deen agreed and he came with the complainant and the complainant handed over his jeep to Mehar Deen and on the same evening, the complainant left for Ajmer. When he was confronted with his this statement (Ex.D.1), he denied his earlier statement. He also contradicted his earlier statement that he left for Ajmer on the same day on which he handed over the jeep to victim Mehar Deen. To prove this fact that the complainant handed over jeep to victim Mehar Deen on 24.9.2000, there is no corroborative evidence. It is the evidence of the complainant as well as the investigating officer PW-31 Tejpal Singh that in absence of complainant PW-2 Shokat, the driver Mehar Deen came to the house of complainant in the night but no evidence was produced by the prosecution, on which date the driver Mehar Deen came back to the house of the complainant Shokat. From the evidence on record, it is unsafe to hold that victim Mehar Deen did not came to the house of the complainant Shokat after 25.9.2000. Since the allegation against the appellants is that they were last seen with the accused on 25.9.2000, then it was the duty of the prosecution to investigate all the facts which should rule out the possibility of accused being seen by other person after the accused were seen with the victim. 14. Since the allegation against the appellants is that they were last seen with the accused on 25.9.2000, then it was the duty of the prosecution to investigate all the facts which should rule out the possibility of accused being seen by other person after the accused were seen with the victim. 14. In addition to above factual aspect, it is relevant to mention here that on the basis of same set of evidence, the one of the accused Kewal Chand has not been convicted by the trial court along with the appellants. If evidence of last seen Was not sufficient for conviction of one of the accused Kewal Chand, then it cannot be sufficient for conviction of the appellants. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Kewal Chand was also with the victim along with other accused on 25.9.2000. He has not been convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 302, IPC or under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, but was convicted under Section 364, IPC then Kewal Chand was with the accused and the deceased upto certain period. The prosecution did not produce any evidence that with whom the driver Mehar Deen remained when Kewal Chand separated from remaining accused and victim, if all the four accused were together with deceased Mehar Deen before that. Where Kewal Chand separated, was important because of the reason that in that situation, all the accused might have separated or Mehar Deen may have went with Kewal Chand and these possibilities cannot be ruled out. In the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi (supra), allegation was that deceased was not seen alive by any one and lastly, two persons were in the company of the deceased when he was alive and those were the appellant and one Bhamta. Bhamta was acquitted in respect of the offence. Hon ble the Apex Court observed that in that situation, the said incriminating evidence of seeing the accused in company of the victim ceased to be incriminating against the co-accused because of the reason that the said co-accused who was in the company of the victim along with the accused who has been convicted is also required to explain all the circumstances about disappearance of the victim. In addition to above, there is long gap between the time of death of Mehar Deen and accused being seen in the company of Mehar Deen. We may recapitulate here that according to the prosecution, the accused were seen with the victim in the morning of 25.9.2000 and the body of victim was recovered after height days on 3.10.2000. The body was found far away from the place where the accused and victim were seen together. As per prosecution report Ex.P.20 victim Mehar Deen died five to ten days ago. Duration is too long and is less certain, therefore, possibility of victim s coming in contact with other cannot be ruled out. In Gambhir s case (supra) the accused was seen with victim on 26.2.1975 and the accused was arrested on 1.3.1975, who offered to point out the well where the dead bodies of three persons were lying. In above case, the doctor who conducted postmortem, could not give probable time of death of the victim. Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused after observing that there was long time gap between accused being seen with the victims and death of victims . Same is the position in this case. 15. Not only that, the prosecution is required to prove every ring of chain for conviction of the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, but here in this case, apart from above important material facts, the recovery of one key of the jeep from one accused and one registration certificate of the vehicle from the one accused, one jack from one accused and one tape-recorder are absolutely significant because of the reason that the Deedwana police found the jeep abandoned with one key, which according to seizure memo, was not the original key of the Jeep. Except mentioning this fact in the seizure memo, there is no evidence to prove that key recovered in the jeep was not the original key of the jeep. There is no evidence that the key which was recovered from the accused, was the original key of the jeep in question, as that key was not tested and even put in the lock of the jeep for the purpose of starting the jeep. There is no evidence that the key which was recovered from the accused, was the original key of the jeep in question, as that key was not tested and even put in the lock of the jeep for the purpose of starting the jeep. Merely saying of one witness that the key was not original key of the jeep itself, is not sufficient evidence to hold that another key which was already in the jeep, in abandoned condition, was not the original key of the jeep or the key which was recovered from the accused was original. 16. Further incriminating circumstance found against the appellants was that the appellants Jetha Ram, Shyam Lal and Gajendra who were arrested on 2.10.2000, gave information under Section 27, Evidence Act, Ex.P.67, Ex.P.68 and Ex.P.69 and even accused Kewal Chand, who was arrested on 4.10.200, gave verbatim the same information under Section 27, Evidence Act on 5.10.2000 that he (not they) thrown the body of deceased Mehar Deen, in the well of village Panchla Siddha and each of the accused took the investigating officers separately to the said village, for which separate recovery memos, Ex.P.12, Ex;P.18 and Ex.P.19 were prepared and as per Ex.P.13, body of deceased taken out from the well at 10 a.m. on 3.10.2000. These informations and accused persons leading to the investigating officers separately to the place where the body was dumped, are highly unbelievable in view of the statement of the prosecution witnesses who witnessed to leading to the investigating officers by the accused to the well where the body was found. The prosecution witness PW-5 Amin Khan, PW-6 Murad Khan and PW-7 Saddique Khan, all says for different accused who told the investigating officers on the site about throwing the body in the well. PW-5 Amin Khan stated that near the village several persons were there including the police officers. There the accused Shyam Lal told the investigating officer that dead body is in the well, at the same time, he stated that Shyam Lal along with three other persons were present with covered faces. How he came to know that person whose face was covered and told police that the body is lying in the well, was Shyam Lal? There the accused Shyam Lal told the investigating officer that dead body is in the well, at the same time, he stated that Shyam Lal along with three other persons were present with covered faces. How he came to know that person whose face was covered and told police that the body is lying in the well, was Shyam Lal? Contradicting, witness Amin Khan PW-6 Murad Khan says that Jetha Ram told the police in the presence of other co-accused that body is lying in the well in question and contradicting that PW-7 Saddique Khan said that all accused including the accused Gajendra came in the same vehicle of the police and the accused Gajendra told the police that Mehar Deen s dead body is lying in the well. All three above witnesses stated that in their presence, the dead body was taken out from the well. Their statements fully contradict the statement of PW-31 Tejpal Singh, who stated that after receipt of the information under Section 27, Evidence Act, from these accused, as per the directions of the higher officers, three separate parties took one individual accused with one party to the well and as per investigating officer PW-31 Tejpal Singh, he took Jetha Ram with him and the appellant-accused Jetha Ram identified the place where the body was dumped by them. Therefore, it appears that all these three witnesses stated in court only what they were told to speak or the entire case of the prosecution that three teams were constituted for taking the three accused to the well in pursuance of the information given by them, is false. It is interesting that these witnesses PW-5 Amin Khan, PW-6 Murad Khan and PW-7 Saddique Khan identified the accused, whose memos were signed by them inspite of the fact that according to all the three witnesses, faces of all the accused were not visible as they were covered. In view of the above reason, the evidence of the prosecution to connect the accused with the recovery of body of deceased is liable to be rejected. 17. The motive for offence is also not proved in this case. It is true that accused can be convicted for the offence which they have committed even when motive is not proved. In view of the above reason, the evidence of the prosecution to connect the accused with the recovery of body of deceased is liable to be rejected. 17. The motive for offence is also not proved in this case. It is true that accused can be convicted for the offence which they have committed even when motive is not proved. When there is very strong motive, then some discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses or other witnesses, can be ignored, but when other evidence are not much trustworthy, then absence of motive for commission of offence is also a relevant factor which can be considered. In this case, the motive projected for commission of offence is of stealing the jeep, but as per the prosecution itself, the jeep was found lying abandoned on a road with one key of the jeep in it. There is no evidence that accused had any enmity with the victim so they might have committed offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had enmity with the complainant. 18. In view of the above reasons, it is held that the prosecution established that the victim Mehar Deen died unnaturally. The victim Mehar Deen was the driver of the jeep of the complainant Shokat. The accused hired the jeep from Mehar Deen on 25.9.2000 from the jeep stand. The prosecution failed to establish that Mehar Deen was not seen after 25.9.2000, particularly after seeing the victim Mehar Deen in the company of the accused. There is possibility of victim Mehar Deen s presence in the night after 25.9.2000 at the residence of the complainant where complainant s family members may have seen him and that may be the last time when the victim was seen and, therefore, the victim was not lastly seen with the accused. The accused persons showing the well in pursuance of their information under Section 27, Evidence Act, is liable to be rejected. The prosecution case that the accused took the jeep and travelled at various places and in consideration of jack and tape, took the Diesel is not sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The jack and tape both were commonly available commodity in the market and it is unsafe to hold that the jack and tape were the articles of the jeep in question itself. The jack and tape both were commonly available commodity in the market and it is unsafe to hold that the jack and tape were the articles of the jeep in question itself. The jeep was already known to the investigating officers as well as in the knowledge of the complainant and was found lying abandoned on road, cannot have any connection with the accused. The prosecution failed to prove that key recovered from the accused was the original key of the jeep in question and the key which was recovered from the jeep itself, was not the original key of the jeep. In view of the above, the prosecution failed to establish the connection between the crime and the accused. 19. Consequently, all these appeals of the appellants are allowed. The appellants are acquitted for the charge under Sections 364, 302, 394 and 201, IPC. Appellant Gajendra is already on bail, therefore, he need not to surrender and his bail bonds are cancelled. Appellants Jetha Ram and Shyam Lal are behind the bar, therefore, they be released forthwith, if not needed in any other case. The accused KewaI Chand has been convicted for offence under Section 364, IPC and his appeal is not before us.