JUDGMENT Jaswant Singh, J.:- This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.58-DB of 2004 filed by convict-appellant Ranjit Singh and Criminal Appeal No.71-DB of 2004 filed by convict-appellant Harjit Singh, arising out of judgment and order dated 13.11.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Offence Punishment Awarded --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Under Section Both the accused/convict are sentenced to undergo life 304/34 IPC for imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- or in default committing to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three murder of gaya months. Parshad ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 Under Section Both the accused/convict are sentenced to undergo 304/34 IPC for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- or in committing default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment murder of Shanker for three months. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Under Section Both the accused/convict are sentenced to undergo 460 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay committing lurking fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine to house trespass undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement Ex.PJ of complainant Devinder PW4, a Chowkidar made before Inspector Nirmal Singh PW10. It was stated therein that he was a resident of Bihar and had come to Jalandhar in the year 1985 and since the year 1986 used to perform the duty of a Watchman during night at Mohalla Ajit Nagar . On 16.1.2002 when it was about 3 am, he heard raula mar ditta, mar ditta coming from the factories of Siri Ram son of Diwan Chand and Sanjiv Kumar son of Subhash Chand (who are uncle and nephew manufacturing hand pump material). He came out on the road and raised a raula, pharo, pharo (catch hold, catch hold of thieves). In the meanwhile one thief Harjit Singh @ Sonu son of Joginder Singh r/o Ajit Nagar , whose name and address was known to him came out of the factory and was overpowered by him on the spot. The clothes of Harjit Singh were stained with blood. In the meanwhile many other persons of the locality collected at the spot and the owner of the factories Siri Ram and Sanjiv Kumar also came at the spot. The clothes of Harjit Singh were stained with blood. In the meanwhile many other persons of the locality collected at the spot and the owner of the factories Siri Ram and Sanjiv Kumar also came at the spot. The respective factories which were locked from the outside were opened by opening their respective locks, whereupon they saw Gaya Parshad Bhaiyya was lying in the factory of Siri Ram and had expired due to injuries whereas Shankar Bhaiyya was lying dead in the factory of Sanjiv Kumar due to injuries. The goods were scattered here and there. In the meanwhile one more thief ran away from the factory who was identified by Siri Ram and Sanjiv Kumar. He was Ranjit Singh @ Leka son of Gian Singh r/o Ajit Nagar. He was chased but he succeeded in escaping. At that time street lights were on. 3. The statement Ex.PJ of PW4 was recorded by Inspector Nirmal Singh, PW10, SHO PS Division No.8 on 16.1.2002 at 5 am at Ravidass School near Kishanpura, Jalandhar,when he met complainant and Sanjiv Kumar. Formal FIR No.8 dated 16.1.2002 was registered at PS Division NO.8 at 6.20 a.m., and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 11.45 am., on the same day. After sending the statement Ex.PJ to police station for registration of formal FIR, PW10 Inspector Nirmal Singh accompanied by complainant went to the place of occurrence. He sent ASI Om Parkash-PW11 and other police officials for arresting accused Ranjit Singh. On reaching at the spot, PW10 Inspector Nirmal Singh arrested accused Harjit Singh; took into possession the blood stained earth from two places vide recovery memo Ex.PL and PV which were made into separate sealed parcels; sent the dead bodies of Gaya Parshad and Shankar to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar for post mortem examination; took into possession some brass items and one kirpan from the custody of appellant Harjit Singh, vide recovery memo Ex.PO; recorded statement Ex.PP of Ranjit Singh, who was arrested by ASI Om Parkash PW11 on 16.1.2002 at 8.45 am from his house; took into possession chhuri and other articles vide recovery memo Ex.PR on the basis of statement of Ranjit Singh from a disclosed place pointed out by the latter; recovered blood stained clothes of appellants Harjit Singh and Ranjit Singh vide recovery memos Ex.PS and PT respectively, and site plan Ex.PX was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was presented. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and tendered various documents in evidence. In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellants stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. They did no lead any evidence in their defence. 6. PW1 Dr.Rajneesh Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of deceased Gaya Parshad and Shankar vide Post mortem report Ex.PA and PD at 2.30 and 3.30 pm respectively on 16.1.2002. He found 9 incised/stab wounds on the person of Gaya Parshad while 8 incised/stab wounds were found on the person of Shankar. According to the said witness cause of death in both the cases was due to hemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. 7. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and perusing the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. Hence the present appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Ranjit Singh has argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the involvement of accused appellant Ranjit Singh in the commission of offence in view of his identity having not been established. He referred to the cross examination of Devinder PW4, where he has admitted that “when Sanjiv Kumar opened the gate I saw a man running from inside the factory. I cannot identify that man”. It was then submitted that Siri Ram, PW7 had not supported the prosecution case at all (he had turned hostile) and Sanjiv Kumar PW6 in his cross examination has stated that he had named appellant Ranjit Singh as one of the thieves at the instance and under the pressure of police. Therefore, it was submitted that the testimony of Sanjiv Kumar, PW6 is that of unreliable witness and cannot without any corroboration be used to establish the culpability of appellant Ranjit Singh. 10. We are not impressed by this argument and hence the same is liable to be rejected. Therefore, it was submitted that the testimony of Sanjiv Kumar, PW6 is that of unreliable witness and cannot without any corroboration be used to establish the culpability of appellant Ranjit Singh. 10. We are not impressed by this argument and hence the same is liable to be rejected. PW4 Devinder Singh has testified that he is the Chowkidar in the area and had apprehended appellant Harjit Singh at the spot when he came out of the factory of Sanjiv Kumar. His clothes were smeared with blood. He has deposed that when Sanjiv Kumar opened the lock of his factory, another thief ran away from the factory and managed to escape, when he was chased and was identified by PW6 Sanjiv Kumar and PW7 Siri Ram as Ranjit Singh @ Loke. PW6 Sanjiv Kumar in his examination in chief on 18.2.2003 has deposed that “when we opened our factory another thief was found present there and he ran away. I identified him as Ranjit Singh present in court. Harjit Singh was working in our factory a year back before the incidence. Ranjit Singh used to come to see him. Therefore, I recognize him. I alongwith Chowkidar Devinder and other persons tried to capture but he was able to run away. There was electric lights of the corporation as well as of the factory in our street”. Sanjiv Kumar further deposed that Ranjit Singh was arrested by the police next morning and he fully supported the prosecution with respect to disclosure statement Ex.PP of Ranjit Singh and recovery of churri and stolen items from the factory premises. However, when he was recalled for cross examination on 19.5.2003 he stated in his cross examination that Ranjit Singh was named as one of the thieves under the influence of the police when none of the accused persons were assailants or culprit. He was declared hostile and put to cross examination. The plea of police pressure by PW6 is after thought and made with a view to suppress the truth and therefore untenable. When PW6 appeared in Court for his cross examination it cannot be imagined much less suggested that there was any police pressure on him to testify on the lines of his first version given to the police. The plea of police pressure by PW6 is after thought and made with a view to suppress the truth and therefore untenable. When PW6 appeared in Court for his cross examination it cannot be imagined much less suggested that there was any police pressure on him to testify on the lines of his first version given to the police. It is well settled that the evidence of such a witness to the extent the same supports the prosecution version is admissible and if corroborated by other reliable evidence can be relied on to base conviction. Therefore, the appellant Ranjit Singh was the other culprit besides Harjit Singh who was present at the place of occurrence and had subsequently fled away cannot be doubted. It is to be noticed that PW6 Sanjiv Kumar was not cross examined to elicit any response that Harjit Singh had never worked in the factory premises of Sanjiv Kumar or Ranjit Singh was not visiting him, to doubt the identification of Ranjit. 11. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that alleged recoveries of weapon of offence (chhuri) and stolen items are a result of padding by the investigating agency, as they were from a place accessible to all. It was further submitted that it was most unbelievable that appellant Ranjit Singh at the time of his arrest would still be wearing blood stained clothes. It was lastly argued that recovery of blood stained clothes is not admissible in evidence as the same cannot be construed as a recovery for the purpose of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act because such recovery is not in pursuance to any disclosure statement. Reliance was placed upon Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 639. 12. We are afraid that these submissions do not cut any ice and, therefore, deserve to be rejected. It has come in evidence that the place of occurrence is within the factory premises. It has been proved on record by the testimony of PW4 Devinder and PW6 Sanjiv Kumar that on opening of the lock of the factory, appellant Ranjit Singh ran out from the factory premises. It is also on record that there was large gathering of people. In these circumstances it was quite natural for the appellant Ranjit Singh to hide the stolen articles and the knife within the factory premises. It is also on record that there was large gathering of people. In these circumstances it was quite natural for the appellant Ranjit Singh to hide the stolen articles and the knife within the factory premises. It has also come on record that accused Ranjit Singh was arrested at 8.45 am the same morning, and soon thereafter on interrogation the articles were recovered. Therefore, no infirmity can be found regarding the recovery of such articles. 13. Since appellant Ranjit Singh was arrested soon after the occurrence in the morning, we find that it was not unnatural if he was wearing the same clothes, which were stated to be blood stained since it has not come on record as to what extent they were stained with blood which may have prompted the accused to change his clothes immediately. As regards the argument that the blood stained clothes cannot be relied upon by the prosecution as they are not recovered in pursuance to any disclosure statement, it is to be noticed that clothes were recovered from his person at the time of his arrest soon after the occurrence. They were not hidden at some place for which some disclosure statement was required. In the cited judgment the ornaments found on the person of accused were recovered after 12 days of the occurrence and therefore, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held the same to be not believable. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. In view of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the onus was upon the appellant to offer some explanation regarding the blood stains. No explanation has been tendered by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 14. PW11 ASI Om Parkash was also not put any question during his cross examination regarding discovery of such clothes. A perusal of FSL report (Ex.PV) has proved that the blood smeared clothes of both the accused were found to be stained with human blood. The recovery of the articles stolen from the factory of Sanjiv Kumar, from both the accused completes the chain of circumstances linking both the accused with the offence with which they are charged. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has been able to fully prove the chain of circumstances which cumulatively taken form a link which clinchingly points towards the guilt of both the accused and are totally incompatible with their innocence. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has been able to fully prove the chain of circumstances which cumulatively taken form a link which clinchingly points towards the guilt of both the accused and are totally incompatible with their innocence. We find that the learned trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused have committed lurking house trespass by night by entering the factory premises of Sanjiv Kumar and Siri Ram and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 460 IPC. They further committed the murder of Gaya Parshad Bhaiyya and Shankar Bhaiyya thereby committing offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. 15. For the reasons drecorded above, finding no merit in both the appeals the same are hereby dismissed. ----------------