JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. A complaint (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged by Vishal Tandon, son of victim Prakash Narayan Tandon with Police Station Kashipur Kotwali, enumerating the facts therein that victim retired from Revenue Department and was dealing with money-lending after retirement. Accused-appellant Idris, son of Imam, r/o Mohalla Ghasmandi, Kashipur, used to come to victim, pledge ornaments and borrow money from him. On 09.10.1997, Prakash Narayan Tandon told his wife in the morning that 2 Idris’s ornaments were to be returned. He instructed her to take out Idris’s articles, as he would be coming to take them back. Subsequently when Idris came in the course of day and pressed the bell, Prakash Narayan Tandon opened the door. Idris was seated in the drawing room. Prakash Narayan Tandon went upstairs and informed his wife that Idris has come and the articles are to be returned. He took ornaments pledged by Idris and went to drawing room again. Idris and Prakash Narayan Tandon became busy in settling the accounts. At 2:30 p.m. informant (son of victim) along with his mother went to see a procession. When they came back at 9:00 pm, they found that victim was missing. When the informant went to the drawing room, he saw that the door was bolted from inside. Somehow the door was opened. When the same was opened, victim was found dead on the floor near sofa. He sustained incised wounds of knife (dagger). Neither the ornaments nor the money which were to be exchanged were found. Prakash Narayan Tandon was killed by Idris. 2. The FIR was registered well in time, upon which investigation started. After completing investigation, a charge sheet against the accused-appellant Idris and two others was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 IPC. Trial began before learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Nainital. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant Idris for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 411 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Co-accused Shamim and Asif (non-appellants) were also charged in connection with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 IPC. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. Statements of accused-appellant as well as co-accused Asif were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied everything. The 3rd accused Shamim died during the course of trial and therefore, the case against him was abated. No witness was produced in defence. 3. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. Statements of accused-appellant as well as co-accused Asif were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied everything. The 3rd accused Shamim died during the course of trial and therefore, the case against him was abated. No witness was produced in defence. 3. After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge/III FTC, Nainital held accused-appellant Idris guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 411 IPC. He was awarded imprisonment for life along with a fine of ‘10,000/-, in default of which he was required to undergo two months’ further rigorous imprisonment as regards the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ‘5,000/-, in default of which one month’s further rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC and a fine of ‘5,000/-, in default of which he was required to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, present appeal was preferred by the accused-appellant Idris. Co-accused Asif was exonerated by the trial court. 4. Informant Vishal Tandon entered into the witness box as PW 2. In his examination in chief, he narrated what was written by him in the complaint (Ext. Ka-1). Since the examination-in-chief is almost verbatim reproduction of the contents of complaint, hence we skip reproducing the examination-in-chief of PW 2 Vishal Tandon in order to avoid repetition. He proved complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and identified ornaments in the Court saying that these were the articles which were taken out by him along with his mother from the safe / almirah and were handed over to his father (victim). This jewellery was the same as was seen by him on 09.10.1997. The same was put up before him in identification proceedings and thereafter this jewellery was being shown to him in the Court in the course of the day. The jewellery was marked as Ext. 6 to Ext. 14. 5. PW 2 Vishal Tandon conceded that his father had no license of money-lending. He along with his mother and his brother were at home till 2:00 pm on the fateful day. When his father took the jewellery from his mother, the same was in two packets. The packets were having pieces of papers indicating the name of Idris. 14. 5. PW 2 Vishal Tandon conceded that his father had no license of money-lending. He along with his mother and his brother were at home till 2:00 pm on the fateful day. When his father took the jewellery from his mother, the same was in two packets. The packets were having pieces of papers indicating the name of Idris. A verbal dual took place between Idris and victim. They went to see the procession through the courtyard of 5 house. They went outside through main gate of the house. When they returned, he was the first person to see the dead body of his father. He wrote report (complaint) at his house. It took him 5 to 10 minutes to draw it, then he went to Police Station which took him another 5 to 10 minutes to go there. Investigating Officer came on the spot at 10:00 pm. He was apprised with the fact that motorcycle of Idris was not there. A person sitting in their drawing room was not visible from the first floor of their house. Any person standing on the road was not visible from the first floor. It was his father who informed them about the arrival of Idris. The family stayed upstairs. When the jewellery was handed over by them to victim, Idris was sitting in the drawing room. His mother did not hand over pledged jewellery to his father in presence of Idris. Idris did not come upstairs. Victim Prakash Narayan Tandon told that Idris was sitting in the drawing room. 6. PW 2 Vishal Tandon also said that their house was situated in a crowded place. The neighbours did not tell him anything about the incident. He did not try to find out from anybody as to who killed his father. Later on he inquired from the people but they pleaded ignorance about the incident. 7. Regarding the ornaments / jewellery, PW 2 Vishal Tandon said that recovered articles were correctly identified by him since he and his brother used to physically verify pledged articles very often. They had knowledge about the same and they correctly identified recovered articles. Idris (appellant) had been visiting them for the last three years. He used to pledge the articles and sometimes got the same released. He had no knowledge whether Idris harbourd any grudge against his father regarding pledged articles. Idris belonged to Ghasmandi, Kashipur. They had knowledge about the same and they correctly identified recovered articles. Idris (appellant) had been visiting them for the last three years. He used to pledge the articles and sometimes got the same released. He had no knowledge whether Idris harbourd any grudge against his father regarding pledged articles. Idris belonged to Ghasmandi, Kashipur. This witness recognized him and knew him by name because he used to visit victim’s house quite often. The name of Idris was never discussed with any person other than their family members. Appreciation of evidence of PW2 8. PW 2 Vishal Tandon knew appellant very well because he was a frequent visitor to his house. Since the victim dealt with in money-lending therefore, Idris used to come to victim, pledge the jewellery and borrow money from him. Appellant’s identity was well established. There was no doubt about the same. It has come in evidence that PW 2 Vishal Tandon, his mother and his brother remained in the house till 2:00 pm on the date of incident. Although Idris was not seen by PW 2 Vishal Tandon in his drawing room that very day, yet it has come in evidence that the victim came upstairs to take pledged articles from him and his mother, which articles were to be returned to the appellant. PW 2 Vishal Tandon and his mother knew that Idris would be coming on that day to take back jewellery. Jewellery was taken out by PW 2 Vishal Tandon and his mother from cash chest / almirah. When victim climbed upstairs to take pledged jewellery, the same was handed over to victim by his family members (for returning the same) to Idris. Around 2’0 clock, the family members left the house as they wanted to proceed in a procession outside. When the family members came back, they found that the drawing room was bolted from inside. Somehow they managed to open the door, only to find that dead body of victim was lying on the floor with distinctly visible incised wounds. No one else had any occasion to visit their house in between. The appellant was last seen to have come and visited their residence. It was the victim who divulged the presence of Idris to PW 2 Vishal Tandon and his mother. PW 2 Vishal Tandon was natural witness who narrated the circumstances of the incident in most natural way. No one else had any occasion to visit their house in between. The appellant was last seen to have come and visited their residence. It was the victim who divulged the presence of Idris to PW 2 Vishal Tandon and his mother. PW 2 Vishal Tandon was natural witness who narrated the circumstances of the incident in most natural way. He was cross-examined at length but nothing has come in his testimony which may be of any help to the defence. He was not vulnerable. His was unimpeachable testimony. The testimony of PW 2 Vishal Tandon is thus believable and acceptable. Evidence of PW1 and appreciation 9. PW 1 Lavlin Tandon was the first witness to enter into the witness box. He said that his father was a money-lender. Idris used to keep jewellery with his father and borrow money on payment of interest. Accused-appellant Idris was recognized by PW 1 Lavlin Tandon in Court as well as in the morning of 09.10.1997 (the fateful day). Lavlin’s father told Lavlin’s mother that Idris would be coming with money to take back his jewellery. He requested her to take out the jewellery from safe/almirah. They took out the jewellery pledged by Idris. When accused-appellant Idris pressed the bell, Lavlin’s father informed Lavlin’s mother about the arrival of Idris. He asked her to hand over the jewellery to him. Then his father went downstairs. Idris was sitting in drawing room. Victim again climbed upstairs to take jewellery. He took the same and went back to the drawing room. After 5 to 7 minutes they heard the verbal dual / exchange of words between Idris and victim. Around 2:30 pm, he along with his mother Asha Rani Tandon and his brother PW 2 Vishal Tandon went to see procession. Idris was sitting with his father in drawing room. This witness informed his father that they were going to see the procession of Goddess. When they returned at 9:00 pm after witnessing the procession, they did not find the motorcycle (of Idris) which was standing earlier. When they returned to their house they did not find their father. They went to see the victim in the drawing room which was bolted from inside. When they returned at 9:00 pm after witnessing the procession, they did not find the motorcycle (of Idris) which was standing earlier. When they returned to their house they did not find their father. They went to see the victim in the drawing room which was bolted from inside. They went through another door which opened in the lane and somehow managed to enter into the drawing room, only to find out that the Prakash Narayan Tandon was dead and the dead body was lying in a pool of blood. The jewellery as well as the money. Idris robbed victim of jewellery/money and killed him. Elaborating further, PW 1 Lavlin Tandon also said that his father used to maintain diary in his own handwriting and used to keep pledged articles along with a slip of paper. He used to tally the description written on the piece of paper while returning jewellery. He was summoned by Investigating Officer on 25.12.1997 along with the diary of his father. The articles recovered from Idris were tallied/matched with the entries made by victim in his diary. The photocopy of such document was retained by the Investigating Officer. Looted articles thus recovered were exhibited and were marked as Exts. 01 to 14. . Although he is the son of victim, yet he is also the most natural witness. His presence was probable. Prosecution story derived strength from him. He can not be termed as a chance witness. was missing. He tried to console his mother. His brother Vishal Tandon went to inform PoliceThe testimony of PW 1 Lavlin Tandon also inspires confidenceThe narration given by him is unassailable. Post mortem examination 10. When the postmortem on the dead body of Prakash Narayan Tandon was conducted on 10.10.1997 at 10:00 am, as many as 17 incised wounds were found on different parts of the body of victim, like neck, chest, abdomen, hips and right arm. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries as per postmortem report (Ext. Ka-2) prepared by PW 3 Dr. Shamim Ahmad. His death was possible on 09.10.1997 between 2:30 pm to 10:00 pm by inflicting blows of sharp edged weapon according to the doctor. This shows that the victim was assaulted brutally which resulted in his death. Recovery of incriminating articles 11. Ka-2) prepared by PW 3 Dr. Shamim Ahmad. His death was possible on 09.10.1997 between 2:30 pm to 10:00 pm by inflicting blows of sharp edged weapon according to the doctor. This shows that the victim was assaulted brutally which resulted in his death. Recovery of incriminating articles 11. The dagger as well as gold/silver jewellery was recovered on the disclosure and pointing of accused–appellant. Remaining ornaments were given by the appellant to his cousin Shamim. The confessional statement of accused Idris was Ext. Ka-3, memo of recovery of dagger along with jewellery was Ext. Ka-21 and memo of recovery of remaining ornaments along with motorcycle, which was used in the commission of crime, from the possession of co-accused Shamim (non-appellant) was Ext. Ka-4. Blood stained dagger and jewellery were recovered from a tin box, which was kept beneath a cot by the appellant in his house. The same was evidenced by PW 4 SO Ramesh Chandra Sharma and PW 9 Constable Digamber Dutt Kapri. Recovery of remaining ornaments from the possession of co-accused Shamim was evidenced by PW 8 Deputy SP Vinod Chandra Sharma, who also investigated the case at some length. Forensic Science Laboratory, vide report dated 15.11.1997 (Ext. Ka-19), found human blood of ‘B’ group on the dagger after examination. This dagger was recovered on the disclosure and pointing of the appellant. Forensic Science Laboratory also reported that the blood soaked garments also contained human blood of ‘B’ group. The victim was wearing these garments at the time of his killing. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur made a request to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, UP, Agra for examining the blood stained dagger, wearing apparels of the deceased and blood stained soil/simple soil. The report said that these articles contained human blood of ‘B’ group. Although the maker of the report was not called in evidence, yet the report forwarded by Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C. Thus, the missing link was supplied by the Forensic Expert. In other words, blood group of deceased matched with the human blood found on the dagger and thereby leaving no scope for disbelieving the prosecution story. Reference of evidence tendered against non-appellant is being given only because a criminal miscellaneous application has been moved by the son of the deceased for return of recovered jewellery. In other words, blood group of deceased matched with the human blood found on the dagger and thereby leaving no scope for disbelieving the prosecution story. Reference of evidence tendered against non-appellant is being given only because a criminal miscellaneous application has been moved by the son of the deceased for return of recovered jewellery. [PW 5 Vinay Tandon was witness to inquest report. PW 6 Sunil Kharbanda and PW 7 Anis Ahmad did not support prosecution story and were declared hostile. No useful purpose will therefore, be served by discussing their evidence.] Circumstances leading to inference of guilt 12. (i) Evidence has it that the brother of informant last saw victim in the company of appellant in victim’s drawing room. Appellant came to victim for settling his accounts and taking back the jewellery, which was pledged with victim. (ii) The dagger used in the commission of crime was recovered on appellant’s disclosure and pointing. (iii) The jewellery which was to be exchanged in lieu of money (prior to the incident) was also recovered from the house of appellant on his disclosure and pointing. (iv) Forensic Science Laboratory, in its report, found human blood of ‘B’ group on the dagger, which was found on the disclosure and pointing of the appellant. (v) The laboratory also reported that the blood soaked garments also contained human blood of ‘B’ group. The victim was wearing these garments when he was killed. (vi) The appellant failed to account for the possession of incrimi-nating articles in his house, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating articles include the dagger as well as the pledged jewellery, which was to be exchanged in lieu of money with victim. (vii) Appellant also maintained silence over the presence of human blood on the dagger, which was recovered on his disclosure and pointing. (viii) Accused was arrested not from his in-laws’ house, but from some other place. He was arrested at Moradabad from his paramour’s house. (ix) The chain of circumstances is thus complete. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether accused discharged his obligation u/s 313 Cr.P.C.? 13. The appellant was last seen sitting with victim in the drawing room. The dagger used in the commission of crime was recovered on his disclosure and pointing. (ix) The chain of circumstances is thus complete. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether accused discharged his obligation u/s 313 Cr.P.C.? 13. The appellant was last seen sitting with victim in the drawing room. The dagger used in the commission of crime was recovered on his disclosure and pointing. The jewellery which was to be exchanged in lieu of money, was also recovered from the house of appellant on his disclosure and pointing. After the victim was robbed of the jewellery, some of them were handed over by the appellant to his cousin Shamim. FSL, in its report dated 15.11.1997 (Ext. Ka-19), found human blood of ‘B’ group on the dagger (which was found on the disclosure and pointing of the appellant). FSL also reported that the blood soaked garments (which the victim was wearing at the time of his killing) also contained human blood of ‘B’ group. When the statement of accused-appellant Idris under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken, he denied everything. Although an accused has a right to maintain silence but he is required to speak when any fact is especially within his knowledge. He failed to account for the incriminating articles found in his house on his disclosure and pointing. He also maintained silence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., over the presence of human blood on the dagger, which was so recovered on his pointing. 14. Accused-appellant, in the instant case, did not assist the trial court to disprove prosecution story. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had obligation to say certain things, but he failed to discharge that obligation. The accused denied everything and thus did not assist the court to prove that he was not guilty. Inference 15. There was absolutely normal sequence of events. The victim took jewellery from his wife only to be handed over to assailant. Appellant and victim were sitting together in the drawing room of victim. Appellant had come to clear his accounts with victim. A verbal dual took place between them. Two sons along with their mother left the victim for attending a procession after informing him about the same. When they returned, they found victim in a pool of blood. Neither the jewellery nor the money was there. Idris’s motorcycle was also not there. Door was closed from inside. A verbal dual took place between them. Two sons along with their mother left the victim for attending a procession after informing him about the same. When they returned, they found victim in a pool of blood. Neither the jewellery nor the money was there. Idris’s motorcycle was also not there. Door was closed from inside. It was opened by entering into another door opening in gallery. The accused was last seen with deceased. He was picked up in his paramour’s house. The dagger was recovered. The dagger was stained with blood having ‘B’ Group. Blood soaked garments of deceased also showed the same blood group. The jewellery was recovered from the possession of accused. The chain of circumstances was thus complete. How can then one say that the chain was broken? 16. There is therefore, no reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by learned court below. We are inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd FTC, Nainital. The appeal therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 17. The appeal of the accused-appellant Idris is thus dismissed. The judgment and order passed by learned trial court is affirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial court is also affirmed. Accused-appellant Idris is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the court concerned to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court and thus affirmed by this court. 18. Criminal Misc. Application No. 193 of 2012 was filed on behalf of Vishal Tandon son of late Prakash Narayan Tandon with the prayer to direct the court concerned to release case property (Exts. 1 to 14) in favour of the applicant. The trial court, vide order dated 28.07.2005, ordered that the case property shall be disposed of as per the decision of the appellate court. Since it has been established that the victim Prakash Narayan Tandon was robbed of the jewellery, which was recovered and none of the accused claimed such property, therefore, it is directed that the articles thus recovered be released in favour of PW 2 Vishal Tandon son of late Prakash Narayan Tandon. CRMA No. 193 of 2012 is accordingly allowed. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the Court concerned for ensuring compliance of the order.