JUDGMENT : T. K. KAUSHAL, J. 1. Since, above two appeals arise out of common impugned judgment, this judgment shall govern disposal of aforesaid both the appeals. 2. These appeals have been directed against judgment dated 19-9-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in S. T. No. 34/2001, convicting and sentencing the appellants as below : Sr. No. Conviction Sentence 1. Under section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing murders of Kodulal, aged about 70 years and his wife Sudhia Bai aged about 68 years. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default 4 months R.I. (on two counts, to run consecutively) 2. Under section 460, Indian Penal Code for committing lurking house trespass by night for committing murder and dacoity. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default 4 months R.I. 3. Under section 396, Indian Penal Code for committing dacoity with murder. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default 6 months R.I. 3. Facts, in short, are that on 23-11-2000 at about 6 A.M. as usual, Dadbal, agricultural labour of deceased Kodulal, (PW-7) knocked the doors of back side of the house, did not receive any response, out of anxiety, saw, through the hole of the door, dead bodies were lying in the courtyard. He came towards door of front side, door was opened by a push, he, inside the house, saw blood and dead bodies of Kodulal and his wife Sudhia Bai. He informed this fact to Sunder Singh (PW-10). Dadbal (PW-3) and Sunder Singh (PW-10) informed this incident to Govind Singh (PW-17). This incident was informed to relatives of the deceased Rupendra, grand son of the deceased persons (PW-1), Brijvasi, brother of the deceased Kodulal (PW-2), Urmila Bai, wife of Ramcharan Gupta, nephew-cum-adopted son of deceased (PW-4), Ramcharan, nephew-cum-adopted son of deceased Kodulal (PW-9), Ramkripal, younger brother of deceased Kodulal (PW-11). 4. On 23-11-2000 at about 12.45 P.M., Sunder Singh (PW-10) lodged F.I.R. Ex.P/11. Police Jaisingh Nagar registered a case at Crime No. 485/2000 under section 302, Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. Simultaneously, Inquest proceeding was conducted. Naksha Panchayatnamas of dead body of Kodulal Ex.P/2 and Sudhia Bai Ex.P/3, were prepared. Dead bodies were sent to Community Health Centre, Jaisingh Nagar, Shahdol for post-mortem. Ramcharan (PW-9) and Urmila (PW-4) informed Police, the description and magnitude of looted ornaments and cash. Simultaneously, Inquest proceeding was conducted. Naksha Panchayatnamas of dead body of Kodulal Ex.P/2 and Sudhia Bai Ex.P/3, were prepared. Dead bodies were sent to Community Health Centre, Jaisingh Nagar, Shahdol for post-mortem. Ramcharan (PW-9) and Urmila (PW-4) informed Police, the description and magnitude of looted ornaments and cash. Police recorded their statements under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. On 24-11-2000 at about 10 A.M., Dr. Sampurna Nand (PW-5) conducted post-mortem of Kodulal and Sudhia Bai. 6. According to post-mortem report Ex.P/7, following injuries were found on the body of Kodulal - (1) Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm variable depth on right side of neck obliquely placed. (2) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x variable depth on right side of neck, 1cm above injury No. 1. (3) Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x variable depth extending from lower part of left shoulder to the medial and of left calivic. (4) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x 0.6 cm just below and behind the left ear. (5) A cut through wound on the left external ear, 0.6 cm in length. All injuries had been caused by hard and sharp object within 12 hrs. of death. Death was caused within 24 to 48 hrs. from the post-mortem. 7. According to post-mortem report Ex.P/8, following injuries were found on the body of Sudhia Bai - (1) One abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on anterior aspect of right shoulder (2) Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm superior aspect of right shoulder (3) Incised wound 6 cm x 5 cm on dorsal aspect of right elbow (4) Incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm on right foot. (6) Though there was no ligature mark present around the neck but ligature mark was present around the neck, more mark on right side and faint groove was found on left side. Abrasion was found. Hyoid bone was found fractured. Cause of her death was Asphyxia due to haemorrhage and duration of death was 24 to 48 hrs. from the post-mortem. 8. During investigation, on 3-12-2000, appellants were arrested. On the basis of information furnished by appellant Lukman, vide seizure memo Ex.P/14, looted item silver 'Sakdi' (Kardhani) and his blood stained pant was recovered. On the basis of information furnished by appellant Sultan, vide seizure memo Ex.P/16, looted items gold 'Addhi' (Mohar), cash Rs. from the post-mortem. 8. During investigation, on 3-12-2000, appellants were arrested. On the basis of information furnished by appellant Lukman, vide seizure memo Ex.P/14, looted item silver 'Sakdi' (Kardhani) and his blood stained pant was recovered. On the basis of information furnished by appellant Sultan, vide seizure memo Ex.P/16, looted items gold 'Addhi' (Mohar), cash Rs. 1000/-, blood stained shirt/jeans pant and weapon Tangi were recovered. On the basis of information furnished by appellant Ramsingh Gond, vide seizure Ex.P/18, looted item silver 'Kada' and cash Rs. 200/-, were recovered. On the basis of information furnished by appellant Juhur Bux, vide seizure memo Ex.P/20, looted item "Addhi" (Mohar), his blood stained T-shirt, pant and weapon knife were recovered. On the basis of information furnished by appellant Lalit Mohan, vide seizure Ex.P/22, looted item gold 'Addhi' (Mohar) and cash Rs. 200/-, were recovered. 9. Aforesaid ornaments were identified by Urmila (PW-4) and Ramcharan (PW-9) in a test identification parade held by G. P. Baghel, Naib Tehsildar (PW-16) vide memo Ex.P/6 on 11-12-2000 in his office at Jaisingh Nagar. Plain and blood stained soil, clothes of appellants and deceased, weapons and blood stained currency note were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. F.S.L. report is Ex.P/30. Completing investigation Police Jaisingh Nagar, citing 21 witnesses, submitted charge-sheet, under sections 302, 460, 396, Indian Penal Code, against the appellants. 10. Trial Court framed charge under sections 302 (on two counts), 460 and 396, Indian Penal Code on the appellants. They abjured guilt. Defence of the appellants in trial Court was that of false implication. To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Rupendra, grand son of deceased Kodulal (PW-1), Brijvasi (PW-2), Dadbal, labour of deceased Kodulal (PW-3), Urmila, wife of adopted son of deceased Kodulal (PW-4), Dr. Sampurna Nand (PW-5), Sukhlal (PW-6), Sena Singh (PW-7), Premnarayan Tiwari (PW-8), Ramcharan, nephew-cum-adopted son of deceased Kodulal (PW-9), Sunder Singh (PW-10), Ramkripal, younger brother of deceased Kodulal (PW-11), Ram Nihare (PW-12), Mansukh Lal (PW-13), Ramanuj Mishra, Constable (PW-14), Santosh Kumar Mishra, Constable (PW-15), C. P. Baghel (PW-16), Govind Singh, Naib Tehsildar (PW-17) and Raghvendra Dwivedi, Investigating Officer (PW-18) were recorded. 11. Having relied upon evidence, found circumstances of recovery and identification of ornaments and currency and blood stained clothes from appellants and motive of attraction of wealth of deceased persons, learned trial Court held appellants guilt, thereby convicted and sentenced them as above. 12. 11. Having relied upon evidence, found circumstances of recovery and identification of ornaments and currency and blood stained clothes from appellants and motive of attraction of wealth of deceased persons, learned trial Court held appellants guilt, thereby convicted and sentenced them as above. 12. Assailing the findings of conviction and sentence, these appeals have been filed by the appellants on the grounds that prosecution did not prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence of recovery of ornaments and identification of ornaments, both is insufficient and suspicious. No independent witnesses of locality were summoned at the time of recovery of ornaments and weapons from the appellants. Conviction on such doubtful evidence is bad in law. On the other hand, learned Dy. Government Advocate supported the findings of conviction and sentence given by the learned trial Court. 13. In view of the evidence of Dr. Sampurna Nand (PW-5), Naksha Panchayat of dead body of Kodulal (Ex.P/2) and Sudhia Bai (Ex.P/3), and their post-mortem reports Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8 respectively, it remains no longer disputed that death of Kodulal and his wife Sudhia Bai were homicidal in nature. 14. To bring home the charges against the appellants, prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence of recovery of looted items and cash from the appellants, recovery of blood stained clothes from the appellants, recovery of weapons from the appellants and of motive of grabbing money of wealthy lonely living old couple. 15. While deciding the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, involving commission of serious offence in gruesome manner, like double murder in present case, prosecution must prove its case beyond doubt, satisfying the following requirements :- (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not |be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 16. 16. So far as recovery of looted items from appellants is concerned, Urmila (PW-4) stated that she used to see her mother-in-law wearing the ornaments many times hence she can identify the ornaments very well. Her mother-in-law used to keep her ornaments in small box inside the room. She did not find the ornaments after the incident. She identified silver 'Sakdi' (kardhani) and 'Addhi' (Mohar) of gold in the Court itself. She denied the suggestion that she identified the (Sakdi) because of a black thread tag deliberately tagged on it. She stated, she identified the article because she saw her mother-in-law many times wearing. In para 10 of her statement, she stated that she tagged 'Sakdi' from those places where it was broken. Similarly in para 18, she stated that her mother-in-law always used to wear gold 'Addhi' (Mohar). Despite gruelling cross-examination, her statement in this respect, seems to be reliable and inspires the confidence. 17. Ramcharan (PW-9) stated that her mother used to wear three 'Addhi' (gold Mohar) in her neck and also used to wear silver 'Sakdi' (kardhani). It has been emerged out from a very lengthy cross-examination that 'Sakdi' and Kardhani are one and the same things. Similarly, 'Addhi' and Mohar is also one and the same things. The difference is that of nomenclature only. 'Addhi' like Mohar is made of gold and also used to wear in neck as ornament. 'Sakdi' and Kardhani are meant for wearing in waist. In our opinion, this variation in the statements will not render evidence of these witnesses doubtful. They both, being like son and daughter-in-law of deceased persons, had opportunity to see the ornaments and had clearly described to police at the earnest and had identified them in parade and then in Court also. 18. G. P. Baghel, Naib Tehsildar (PW-16) stated that on 11-2-2000 in Tehsil Jaisingh Nagar, he conducted test identification parade of silver kardhani, silver harraiya and three gold mohars. He had mixed similar type of items prior to the identification. Urmila (PW-4) and Ramcharan (PW-9), in aforesaid parade, identified the items. He prepared T.I.P. memo Ex.P/6 and also got it signed by witnesses. He had been cross-examined by the appellants on the point of purity of the ornaments, its design and quantity of the items mixed etc. But, over all, he seems to be a responsible government servant and is a reliable witness. He prepared T.I.P. memo Ex.P/6 and also got it signed by witnesses. He had been cross-examined by the appellants on the point of purity of the ornaments, its design and quantity of the items mixed etc. But, over all, he seems to be a responsible government servant and is a reliable witness. He had received the items for identification from police. Sufficient items were mixed prior to placing them for identification before witnesses. Proceeding was conducted by him in independent manner and Panchanama Ex.P/6 was duly prepared by him. In our opinion, overall evidence of Urmila (PW-4), Ramcharan (PW-9) and C. P. Baghel (PW-16) are reliable and worthy of credence. 19. Most important circumstance that has been proved by the prosecution and believed by the trial Court is that of recovery of items from the appellants. Statements of Panch witnesses Sunder Singh (PW-10), Govind Singh (PW-17) and Raghvendra Dwivedi, Investigating Officer (PW-18) are relevant on the point. 20. Appellant Lukman was arrested vide Ex.P/26 on 3-12-2000 at about 14.40 hrs. Vide memorandum Ex.P/13, at 2 p.m. Lukman furnished information regarding silver 'Sakdi' (kardhani), a looted item and vide Ex.P/14 at about 2.15 p.m., silver kardnani was recovered from his residence at village Lapri. His blood stained full pant of brown colour was also recovered from his possession. 21. Appellant Sultan vide memo Ex.P/25 was arrested on 3-12-2000 at about 3.45 p.m. in village Lapri at his residence. Vide memorandum Ex.P/15, at 2.45 p.m., he furnished information of looted items gold 'Addhi' (Mohar) and of cash also. In the same sequence at 3 p.m. vide seizure memo Ex.P/16, golden 'Addhi' (Mohar), one full sleeves shirt and jeans containing blood stains on them, one weapon Tangi having blood stains on it, Rs. 100/- currency notes 10 in numbers i.e. 1000/- cash was also recovered from his possession. 22. Appellant Juhur vide Ex.P/2 was arrested on 3-12-2000 at about 16.20 p.m. at village Lapri from his residence. He furnished information vide Ex.P/19 at 15.45 hrs. regarding recovery of looted item gold 'Addhi' (Mohar), his blood stained clothes and cash. Vide seizure memo Ex.P/20, at 16.00 hrs. a gold 'Addhi' (Mohar), his full pant and full sleeves T-shirt both having blood stains and a blood stained knife was recovered from his possession. 23. Appellant Lalit vide memo Ex.P/24 was arrested on 3-12-2000 at about 7.10 hrs. at village Dadar from his house. Vide seizure memo Ex.P/20, at 16.00 hrs. a gold 'Addhi' (Mohar), his full pant and full sleeves T-shirt both having blood stains and a blood stained knife was recovered from his possession. 23. Appellant Lalit vide memo Ex.P/24 was arrested on 3-12-2000 at about 7.10 hrs. at village Dadar from his house. He furnished information vide memo Ex.P/21, at 16.20 hrs. regarding looted item gold 'Addhi' (Mohar) and cash. At 16.40 hrs. from his resident at village Dadar, gold 'Addhi' (Mohar) and five currency notes of 100/- rupees each were recovered vide Ex.P/22. 24. Appellant Ramsingh was arrested on 3-12-2000 at about 17.00 hrs. at village Dadar from his house. He furnished information regarding looted items silver 'Kada' and Rs. 500/- cash vide memorandum Ex.P/17. Vide Ex.P/18, seizure memo at 5.20 p.m., from his residence at village Dadar, one silver 'Kada' weighing 75 gms was recovered and two notes of Rs. 100/- having blood stained were recovered from his possession. 25. Raghvendra Dwivedi, Investigating Officer (PW-18) in paras 27 and 28, stated that from Police Station Jaisingh Nagar, village Lapri is about 15 kms away. Distance of village Dadar and Lapri is about 2 kms and Dadar and Bhursi is also about 2 kms. On 3-12-2000, in whole day time only, appellants were arrested and on the basis of their respective information recoveries were made. In para 33, he stated that Panch witnesses Sunder Singh (PW-10) and Govind Singh (PW-17) met him in village Lapri only. They accompanied him during whole recovery proceedings. He stated that he tried to search local witnesses of village Lapri and Dadar but he failed to find any such local witnesses from those villages. 26. Sunder Singh (PW-10) and Govind Singh (PW-17) duly corroborated the proceeding of memorandum and recovery. In cross-examination Sunder Singh (PW-10), stated that he signed the papers at Police Station. He had also stated that the Police brought all the appellants at Police Station. He had also stated that villages Dadar and Lapri are adjoining villages. 27. Govind Singh (PW-17) stated in cross-examination that he saw the appellants at Police Station but he did not see looted items at Police Station. But these were weighed by a goldsmith and then were sealed, at Police Station. He remained present whole day along with Police party and accused persons in their respective villages. Sunder Singh (PW-10) is a Sarpanch of village Bhursi. But these were weighed by a goldsmith and then were sealed, at Police Station. He remained present whole day along with Police party and accused persons in their respective villages. Sunder Singh (PW-10) is a Sarpanch of village Bhursi. Govind Singh (PW-17) is Panchayat Secretary of village Bhursi. In their presence, proceedings of arrest, memorandums and seizure were completed by Police. 28. Aforesaid evidence reveal, that on 3-12-2000, three appellants were arrested in village Lapri and then two appellants were arrested in an adjoining village Dadar. They were interrogated by Police. They furnished information regarding incriminating items including ornaments, cash, weapons and clothes. Seizures also have been made from all of them. Police started this process at about 2 p.m. in village Lapri and then completed it at about 6 p.m. in village Dadar. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, minor discrepancies will not render the evidence of witnesses suspicious or doubtful. We have to keep in mind the difference and variations of languages in nomenclature of ornaments and short distances between the villages etc. Irresistible conclusion is that, there is no lapse whatsoever in evidence in respect of recovery of items. It has been proved beyond doubt that ornaments had been looted from the deceased persons in the intervening night of 22/23-3-2000 and were found in the possession of appellants on 3-12-2000. It is also proved beyond doubt that looted items which were identified by the witnesses are the same those were marked as articles in the Court. 29. Regarding recovery of one silver 'Kada' and 100/- rupees two currency note from the possession of appellant Ramsingh, it is pertinent to note that 'Kada' was not said to be a looted item either by Urmila (PW-4) or Ramcharan (PW-9). In identification proceeding also there was no item placed as 'Kada' before the witnesses. It is true that one item 'Harna' was placed and identified the witnesses but it has not come on record that 'Harna' and 'Kada' is one of the same item. In these circumstances, recovery of 'Kada' from the possession of Ramsingh will not be sufficient to connect him with the alleged incident. 30. It is true that one item 'Harna' was placed and identified the witnesses but it has not come on record that 'Harna' and 'Kada' is one of the same item. In these circumstances, recovery of 'Kada' from the possession of Ramsingh will not be sufficient to connect him with the alleged incident. 30. Similarly, recovery of currency notes also cannot be said to be a convincing evidence because, these have not been identified by the witnesses nor it is possible to identify the currencies notes by any person in the absence of any specific mark on it. 31. Recovery of ornaments and blood stained clothes is incriminating evidence in this case. F.S.L. report Ex.P/30 is also indicative of the fact that there had been blood stains on the clothes of the appellants Lukman, Sultan and Juhur. Similarly, recovery of 'Addhi' (Mohar) from the possession of appellant Lalit is also incriminating and reliable evidence against him. 32. So far as motive is concerned, prosecution examined Sena Singh, a rickshaw puller (PW-7) who stated that 13 days prior to the incident, he had met appellant Juhur at a hotel, where Juhur told that deceased persons are well-off, if they could be murdered by joint efforts, he might get his share, which would be enough for him to discharge his debts. In cross-examination, he stated that initially, pointer of suspicion was aimed at him also. Police kept on grilling him at Police Station for about a week but ultimately appellants were found to be culprits and he was made a witness. 33. In our opinion, this witness is inherently an unreliable witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony. For getting rid of clutches of Police, he is saying and can say anything. 34. It is true that in cases of circumstantial evidence, chain of the circumstance should be so conclusive completed and reliable so as to lead to only one conclusion that appellants are the persons who committed the offence and none other else. In this case, recoveries of looted items and blood stained clothes have been made after 13 days of the incident. In our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances, it can safely be said that appellants who were found in possession of looted items, soon after the incident, are the author of the crime. In this case, recoveries of looted items and blood stained clothes have been made after 13 days of the incident. In our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances, it can safely be said that appellants who were found in possession of looted items, soon after the incident, are the author of the crime. In this case, recovery is sufficient to connect the appellants with dacoity as well as with murder. This 13 days delay, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, will be deemed soon after the incident. 35. Learned counsel for appellants placed reliance on (2003) II CCR 116 (SC) Babudas vs. State of M. P. and submitted that on the basis of such type of evidence regarding recovery, presumption under section 114-A of Evidence Act cannot be drawn. In present case soon after i.e. after 13 days of the incident, looted items, weapons of evidence, blood stained clothes were recovered from the appellants. Hence presumption under section 114-A of the Act could be drawn because factum of recovery stands proved beyond reasonable doubts, in this case. 36. In respect of appellants Sultan and Juhur, evidence of recovery of ornaments, recovery of weapons and recovery of blood stained clothes is proved beyond doubt. In respect of appellant Lukman, evidence of recovery of ornaments and blood stained clothes is proved beyond doubt. In respect of appellant Lalit, evidence of recovery of ornaments is proved beyond doubt and is sufficient to connect them with the crime. Therefore, we have no hesitation to affirm the convictions of appellants Juhur, Lukman, Sultan and Lalit. However, in view of the provision under section 427(2), Criminal Procedure Code, it is directed that sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed under sections 302, Indian Penal Code on two counts, shall also run concurrently. 37. Appeals in respect of appellants Juhur, Lukman, Sultan and Lalit Mohan, being devoid of substance, subject to aforesaid modification in sentence, stand dismissed. 38. So far as conviction of appellant Ramsingh is concerned, recovery of 'Kada' as discussed above seems to be insufficient to connect him with the incident, because 'Kada' was not mentioned as a looted item by the witnesses nor it was properly identified by them in the Parade. In our considered opinion, appellant Ramsingh is entitled to benefit of doubt. 38. So far as conviction of appellant Ramsingh is concerned, recovery of 'Kada' as discussed above seems to be insufficient to connect him with the incident, because 'Kada' was not mentioned as a looted item by the witnesses nor it was properly identified by them in the Parade. In our considered opinion, appellant Ramsingh is entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, finding of conviction and sentence against Ramsingh is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 39. Appeal in respect of appellant Ramsingh deserves to be allowed. Appellant Ramsingh is acquitted of the charge under sections 302, 460 and 396, Indian Penal Code. He be set free at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.