Judgment V.K. Sharma, J. This common judgment will dispose of the above titled two appeals arising out of a single judgment/order dated 18-10-2010, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur (H.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2010, State of H.P. Vs. Piaro Devi and others, whereby the appellants herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the accused’ and denoted as A-2, Pawan Kumar and A-3 Vicky Chaudhary alias Imanual Chaudhary (in short ‘Vicky Chaudhary’), respectively and Piaro Devi, who was accused No.1 before the learned trial court and shall hereinafter be called as A-1 Piaro Devi, were jointly tried for the offences under Sections 302/34, 201, 120B, 323/34 and 506 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and were convicted and sentenced as enumerated hereinafter. 2. A-1 Piaro Devi, who was charged under Sections 120B, 323/34, 506 Part II/34, 302/34 and 201 IPC was convicted under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months and five days and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for five months, which she had already undergone during investigation and trial of the case. However, she was acquitted of the remaining charges. 3. Similarly, A-2 Pawan Kumar, who was also charged under Sections 120B, 323/34, 506 Part II/34, 302/34 and 201 IPC, was convicted under Sections 323, 506 Part II, 302/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default 7 days simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 506 Part II IPC, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default three months simple imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default three months simple imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC. 4. A-3 Vicky Chaudhary was charged under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months under Section 302/34 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default three months simple imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. 5. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On realization, a sum of Rs.21,250/- being 50% of the total amount of fine of Rs.42,500/- was ordered to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased, Surinder Kumar, as compensation. 6. Co-accused Sudershan Kumar Sharma, who shall hereinafter be denoted as A-4 could not be apprehended by the police and was declared as a proclaimed offender at the committal stage. 7. The factual matrix as emerges out of the final report submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is as follows. 8. On 2.1.2010, at about 11.40 AM, PW-1 Shri Jagdish Chand, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bijhar telephonically informed the police that one dead body was laying near Tropka jungle. On this information, PW-29 Inspector/SHO Baldev Singh along with other police officials proceeded to the spot and recorded the statement of the informant under Section 154 Cr. P.C, who stated that on 2.1.2010, at about 10.00 AM, Dinesh Kumar, Ward Member, telephonically informed him that one dead body was lying near a place known as Tappa Kwali Tropka and when he visited the spot he saw that blood was scattered on link road Tropka and a male dead body was lying at a distance of about 150 meters below the ‘Dhank’ in a trench near the stump of an old tree, with its face smeared with blood and deep wounds on the head and that the dead body could not be identified. In the estimation of the informant the deceased was done to death by some persons with some blunt object. 9. Accordingly the police registered F.I.R. Ex. PW-26/B and commenced investigation. The dead body was subjected to photography and videography vide photographs Ex.PW-7/A to Ex. PW-7/D and CDs Ex. PW-28/Q to Ex. PW-28/T. Photographs depicting the spot scene and recoveries are Ex. PW-28/A to Ex. PW-28/P. During the course of investigation the police recovered wearing apparels (clothes) of the deceased by cutting the same with scissors, a pair of woodland shoes belonging to him and lying near the dead body, blood stained stones and soil, a pair of black gloves with white stripes and pieces of black coloured broken helmet and a ‘mala’ lying on/near the spot and a small bottle of eye/ear drops from the pants’ pocket of the deceased. Inquest report was also prepared. Inquest report was also prepared. The dead body was sent for autopsy to the Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. Thereafter, information about the unidentified dead body was widely publicized through print and electronic media and in the meantime the dead body was kept in dead house at the said hospital for identification. However, when none came forward to identify the same, it was cremated after obtaining orders from the Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur. However, on 9.1.2010, father of the deceased and his other relations and friends with the help of photographs and videos of the deceased identified him as Surinder Kumar, aged 20 years. An earlier photograph of the deceased is Ex. PW-7/E. 10. It was revealed during investigation that the deceased was having mobile phone bearing number 98174 00742. However, when a call was made on the said phone it was found to be switched off. Accordingly, call details, tower location and IMEI number of the said phone were obtained from the concerned department, which revealed that on 31.12.2009 several calls including the last call made at 8.26.58 PM for 58 minutes, were made from this phone to mobile phone number 96252 89094. Accordingly, call details of mobile phone number 96252 89094 were also obtained by the police and it was found that the same was issued to one Kalshi Devi, resident of village Gujrehra, Tehsil Jhanduta, Post Office Shah Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P. On investigation it was found that this sim card had been obtained by PW-4 Sunil Kumar, who was student of 10+2, in the name of his maternal grand mother, Smt. Kalshi Devi. After sometime he had also obtained another sim card from Airtel, bearing number 98055 28928, in the name of his maternal grand mother Smt. Kalshi Devi. However, about two months prior to the occurrence relating to this case when PW-4 Sunil Kumar had come to his native village Gutiana, he had given the aforesaid mobile phone number 96252 89094 to his Tai/Maussi, A-1 Piaro Devi on her asking and had kept sim card number 98055 28928 with himself. Thus, according to the police at the relevant time mobile phone number 96252 89094 was being used by A-1 Piaro Devi. 11. It was further revealed during investigation that A-1 Piaro Devi had married her daughter Ravina (PW-9) at Do Sarka, Sujanpur. Thus, according to the police at the relevant time mobile phone number 96252 89094 was being used by A-1 Piaro Devi. 11. It was further revealed during investigation that A-1 Piaro Devi had married her daughter Ravina (PW-9) at Do Sarka, Sujanpur. On 29.12.2009, A-1 Piaro Devi received telephone call from in-laws of Ravina intimating that she had left for parental house two days back. However, she had not reached there. On 30.12.2009, A-1 Piaro Devi came to know that Ravina was present at the house of her maternal grand father in village Ling Bhagetu. Accordingly she alongwith A-2 Pawan Kumar, who is her husband’s God brother and has also relations with her, went to village Ling Bhagetu during night and brought Ravina to village Gutiana. On enquiry by A-1 Piaro Devi, Ravina told that she was staying with her friend Surinder Kumar alias Lala (deceased). On this both A-1 Piaro Devi and A-2 Pawan Kumar hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, they terrorized Ravina by giving beatings to her and chalked out a plan that on 31.12.2009 she would call the deceased to her parental house at Gutiana on the pretext that they would celebrate New Year as on that day she would be alone there. As per plan, on 31.12.2009, Ravina at the behest of A-1 Piaro Devi and A-2 Pawan Kumar made as many as 23 calls between 10.03 PM to 8.26 PM from the aforesaid mobile phone of A-1 Piaro Devi bearing sim card number 96252 89094 to the deceased on his mobile number 98174 00742 with a view to call him to Gutiana. In the meantime, A-2 Pawan Kumar also called his friend Sudershan (A-4), who belongs to Chakmoh and was in private job at Nagpur, who was accompanied by his friend A-3 Vicky Chaudhary. Thus, according to the prosecution on 31.12.2009, all the four accused in a planned manner called the deceased to the place of occurrence in Tropka jungle and whereas A-1 Piaro Devi remained at her house at Gutiana to keep watch on Ravina and the remaining three accused after taking a hammer (weapon of offence) from the court yard of A-1 Piaro Devi, proceeded to the spot on the motorcycle of A-2 Pawan Kumar bearing registration No. PB-2-AC 7103 and killed the deceased and concealed the dead body in a nallaha below the road by dragging the same. 12. 12. On the basis of call details of mobile phone of A-1 Piaro Devi bearing sim card number 96252 89094 she was arrested on 13.1.2010. Nokia hand set, in which the aforesaid sim card number 96252 89094 was being used by her and which sim card was later on brunt by her, was also recovered. In that handset she was found to be using sim card number 98055 28928. These facts were revealed from the call details and IMEI number of the aforesaid sim card number 96252 89094. 13. During the course of investigation Ravina was sent for medical examination by the police after recording her statement. Her statement was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C through the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar. 14. A-2 Pawan Kumar was arrested by the police on 16.01.2010 and his Nokia mobile hand set along with sim card number 94181 60022, through which he had contacted A-1 Piaro Devi on 31.12.2009, at 9.20 PM was also recovered. Sim card number 98161 74140 through which he was in contact with A-1 Piaro Devi and on the basis of which he was arrested, was also recovered from him. On 17.1.2010, during the course of investigation the motorcycle (Pulser) belonging to the deceased bearing registration No. PB-05-P4710 was recovered by the police from Kathiyan jungle at the instance of A-2 Pawan Kumar. On 18.1.2010, he also got recovered his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-2-AC7103 said to have been used during the occurrence, from the courtyard of A-1 Piaro Devi. On 22.1.2010, keys and documents of the motorcycle belonging to the deceased were also recovered by the police from Kathiyan jungle on the disclosure and at the instance of A-2 Pawan Kumar. On the same day in pursuance of the disclosure made by him, he also got recovered the hammer (weapon of offence) from the water tank in the jungle at Bijhar. 15. A-3 Vicky Chaudhary was arrested by the police on 24.1.2010. On the basis of a disclosure statement said to have been made by him on 28.1.2010, ash of burnt blood stained clothes and burnt sim card number 98174 00742 was recovered by the police from the court yard of A-4 Sudershan Kumar Sharma. 16. During investigation viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for chemical examination to SFSL Junga. However, neither alcohol nor poison was found therein. 16. During investigation viscera of the deceased was preserved and sent for chemical examination to SFSL Junga. However, neither alcohol nor poison was found therein. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the deceased had died due to head injury, which according to him could have been caused with hammer Ex.P-22 and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. 17. The clue materials collected by the police from the spot scene during investigation and sample of blood of the deceased were also sent for chemical examination to SFSL, Junga, which were found to contain blood of group “B”. Similarly, blood of group “B” was also found on the weapon of offence, hammer Ex.P-22. 18. On completion of investigation the accused were sent up to face trial. On being charged, they did not plead guilty and instead claimed trial. Evidence for the prosecution followed. It examined as many as 31 witnesses. 19. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the learned trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. While denying any role in hatching and giving effect to the conspiracy leading to the death of the deceased, A-1 Piaro Devi has admitted almost all other incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution evidence. According to her after compromise of FIR under Section 376 IPC (in which she was the prosecutrix and A-2 Pawan Kumar was the accused), A-2 Pawan Kumar started visiting her house. According to her A-2 Pawan Kuamr had a bad eye on her daughter Ravina, as he had also exploited her (A-1 Piaro Devi) under fear. In reply to question No. 51, she has stated as under:- “I am innocent. Police had pressurized me to become a witness. However, I refused under fear of co-accused Pawan Kumar as he is a dangerous man. I had no faith in Police as earlier, I had lodged report of rape against co-accused Pawan Kumar, which was compromised under pressure of Police.” 20. Police had pressurized me to become a witness. However, I refused under fear of co-accused Pawan Kumar as he is a dangerous man. I had no faith in Police as earlier, I had lodged report of rape against co-accused Pawan Kumar, which was compromised under pressure of Police.” 20. While denying all other incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, A-2 Pawan Kumar has admitted that motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-02-7103 (in fact PB-02 AC 7103) was purchased by him for Rs.30,000/- from PW-11 Mohinder Singh, who in turn had purchased the same from Sher Singh, brother in law of his son, resident of Dakhiora, but documents of the said motor cycle were still in the name of the original owner Sher Singh, son of Onkar Singh, who is residing at Amritsar. In reply to question No. 50, he has offered the following explanation:- “The witnesses have deposed falsely against me because Ravina and her mother ( accused No. 1 Piaro) are inimically disposed against me as false case under Section 376 IPC was registered against me by accused No.1 Piaro Devi and I was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in 2005 and Dy.S.P. Anjani Jaswal was also inimically disposed against me as I was Up Pradhan of my Panchayat.” 21. The case set up by A-3 Vicky Chaudhary is that of total denial, innocence and false implication. According to him, he was subjected to third degree methods by the police to obtain his signatures on the disclosure statements and identification/recovery memo. 22. On conclusion of the trial all the three accused were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court, as already noticed. 23. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused who have also filed written arguments and learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and perused the records. 24. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants (accused) that the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the three versions stated by Ravina, initially to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C and thereafter before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and ultimately in the court as PW-9, suffer from glaring omissions, embellishments, improvements and inherent contradictions and thus cannot be made basis for returning a finding of guilt against them as has been erroneously done by the learned trial court. Conversely the impugned judgment/order have been supported by the respondent-State. Conversely the impugned judgment/order have been supported by the respondent-State. 25. The occurrence is comprised of three parts. The first part pertains to the happenings at village Ling Bhagetu on 30.12.2009, the second at village Gutiana on 31.12.2009 and the third in jungle Tropka on the same day during night. Whereas there is direct evidence relating to the first two parts of the occurrence, the last culminating into the death of the deceased is based on circumstantial evidence. 26. On circumstantial evidence reliance has been placed on behalf of the accused on a large number of judicial precedents listed below:- 1. Brijesh Mavi v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 45 (para 27); 2. Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 403 (para 13); 3. Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 399 (para 5); 4. Shanmughan v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 788 (para 7); 5. Rukia Begum and others v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 779 (paras 16 and 17); 6. State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya, (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 109 (para 24); 7. Wakkar and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 306 (para 12); 8. Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 172 (para 26); 9. Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) Supreme Court Cases 603 (para 7); 10. Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 67 (para 8); and 11. Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 439 (paras 10 to 13); 27. The law relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported as Brijesh Mavi v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra) vide para 27 of the report as under:- “The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. The law relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported as Brijesh Mavi v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra) vide para 27 of the report as under:- “The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstance(s) against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the said circumstance(s) must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Ansari v. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi).” 28. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the appellants/accused on the following authorities: 1. Non joining of independent witnesses to recovery. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rajinder alias Jagdish, Latest HLJ 2012 (HP) 585 (paras 8, 9, 15 and 16). 2. Test identification parade. Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 490 (paras 49 and 50). 3. Common intention under Section 34 IPC. Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 259 (49, 50 and 51). 4. Motive. Niranjan Panja vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 525 (para 15). 5. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 564 (paras 17, 22 and 27). 6. Appreciation of evidence of an accomplice. K. Hashim vs. State of T.N., (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 237 (para 26). 7. Genesis of the prosecution case. Puran Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 791 (para 28). 29. Per contra, the respondent-State has relied upon on the following case law: 1. Delay in lodging FIR. Appreciation of evidence of an accomplice. K. Hashim vs. State of T.N., (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 237 (para 26). 7. Genesis of the prosecution case. Puran Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 791 (para 28). 29. Per contra, the respondent-State has relied upon on the following case law: 1. Delay in lodging FIR. Gurjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 530 (para 24). 2. Joining of independent witnesses to recovery: Vikram Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 3 Supreme Court cases 56 (para 44). 3. Regarding contradictions: i) State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2257 (paras 11, 12 and 13). ii) Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai v. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 184 (para 11). 4. Motive. Sahadevan alias Sagadevan vs. State represented by Inspector of police, Chennai, (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 534 (para 24). 30. We have taken note of the case law cited on behalf of the parties at the bar, as also on behalf of the appellants/accused in the written arguments. 31. The records reveal that identity of the deceased and factum of his death besides being not in dispute also stand established in evidence in the statements of his father PW-7, Shri Julfi Ram, PW-8 Shri Sandeep Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased, PW-16 Dr. Rakesh Dhiman, who had carried out autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and PW-20 Sh. C.P.Verma, Additional Magistrate, Hamirpur, at whose orders the then un-identified dead body of the deceased was permitted to be cremated through Municipal Council, Hamirpur. 32. In view of evidence on record, particularly the statement of PW-16 Dr. Rakesh Dhiman, who had issued postmortem report Ex.PW-16/D detailing the following injuries, death of the deceased is also proved to be homicidal in nature:- List of Antemortem external injuries: “1. Lacerated wound 3 x 1.5 cm, oblique present on left temporal region, 4 cm lateral to the lateral angle of left eye. Margins were irregular and bone deep, clotted blood present and brain matter seen in the wound. 2. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm present on left parietal area 7 cm from the mid line, irregular margins, clotted blood present, brain matter seen in the wound and oblique and bone deep. 3. Margins were irregular and bone deep, clotted blood present and brain matter seen in the wound. 2. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm present on left parietal area 7 cm from the mid line, irregular margins, clotted blood present, brain matter seen in the wound and oblique and bone deep. 3. Lacerated wound 5 x 2 cm, irregular margins and 3 cm posterior to injury No.2, bone deep, clotted blood present. 4. Abraded contusion 15 x 12 cm extending from left mastold to the left cheek, reddish and involving the left pinna. 5. Contusion 5 x 3 cm present on nose extending from nasion to tip of nose and reddish. 6. Abraded contusion 6 x 3 cm present on fore head left side 1 cm lateral from mid line and reddish. 7. Contusion 5 x 4 cm on right side of forehead, reddish and 3 cm above the eyebrow. 8. Abraded contusion 5 x 4 cm, reddish present on right cheek, 2 cm from the nasal crept. 9. Multiple grazed abrasions, reddish present on whole of the back extending from shoulder to the buttocks in an area of 50 cm x 38 cm irregularly placed. 10. Multiple grazed abrasion, reddish present on right infra axillary region extending from superior iliac spine to infra axillary area in an area of 35 x 13 cm. 11. Contusion 6 x 3 cm present on left forearm, posterior aspect, 10 cm from elbow and reddish. 12. Contusion 5 x 3 cm on left fore arm, posterior aspect 1 cm distal to injury No.11 and reddish. 13. Lacerated wound 4 x 2 cm on left thumb and tip of thumb is not present, clotted blood present. 14. Multiple contusion of size 2 x 2 cm on posterior aspect of right forearm in an area of 12 x 5 cm and reddish. 15. Grazed abrasion 7 x 5 cm on right knee and reddish. 16. Grazed abrasion 8 x 4 cm on left knee and reddish. 17. Laceration of right pinna, middle portion 2 x 0.5 cm and reddish.” CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD “On reflecting the scalp, comminuted fracture of left parietal, temporal and occipital bone extending upto the base of skull, depressed fracture with small bone pieces present, brain matter seen and contusion 15 x 12 cm present just below injuries Nos. 17. Laceration of right pinna, middle portion 2 x 0.5 cm and reddish.” CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD “On reflecting the scalp, comminuted fracture of left parietal, temporal and occipital bone extending upto the base of skull, depressed fracture with small bone pieces present, brain matter seen and contusion 15 x 12 cm present just below injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 described on page 2 and reddish contusion on right front parietal region 8 x 6 cm. Laceration of left hemisphere 8 x 5 x 3 cm with gross sub arachnoid haemorrhage with pulpi faction of brain with sub dural haemorrhage.” THORAX: “Walls, ribs and cattilages -Contusion 6 x 4 cm reddish present on right mammary region.” 33. In the opinion of PW-16 Dr. Rakesh Dhiman, the deceased had died due to head injury, which was possible with hammer Ex.P-22. 34. Be it stated at the very outset that both A-1 Piaro Devi and A-2 Pawan Kumar, who were also charged for the offence of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC have been acquitted of the said charge and rightly so as there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to establish any such conspiracy. 35. Now we shall take up individual cases of the two appellants (accused) one after the other. Case against A-2 Pawan Kumar 36. Admittedly, prior to the present occurrence a case of rape under Section 376 IPC was registered against A-2 Pawan Kumar on the complaint of A-1 Piaro Devi being the prosecutrix. Whereas, according to the former, he was acquitted in that case by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in the year 2005, as per A-1 Piaro Devi that case was “compromised” under pressure of police. As per law a case under Section 376 IPC is non-compoundable. However, for the purpose of disposal of this case we need not advert to this aspect as to whether A-2 Pawan Kumar was acquitted in the rape case even despite the allegations having been supported by A-1 Piaro Devi or the acquittal was on account of an unlawful out of court pact between them. However, for the purpose of disposal of this case we need not advert to this aspect as to whether A-2 Pawan Kumar was acquitted in the rape case even despite the allegations having been supported by A-1 Piaro Devi or the acquittal was on account of an unlawful out of court pact between them. However, the fact remains that the evidence on record unmistakenably goes to show that even after disposal of the aforesaid rape case some type of intimacy existed between A-1 Piaro Devi, whose husband usually remained out of home in connection with his job in Gujarat and her son was serving in Indian Army and her daughter Ravina PW-9 had already been married, as stated by her nephew PW-4 Sunil Kumar. According to A-1 Piaro Devi, A-2 Pawan Kumar had a bad eye on her daughter PW-9 Ravina. It appears that both A-1 Piaro Devi and PW-9 Ravina were prisoners of their own circumstances and were just pawns in the hands of A-2 Pawan Kumar and according to them they were under constant threat and fear from him, as he is a dangerous person. 37. It is also in evidence in the statement of PW-3 Shri Sanjeev Kumar, a friend of the deceased that the deceased was having friendly relations with PW-9 Ravina, whose name he has disclosed as Ravina Jaan, albeit the fact that she was a married lady and both of them had been meeting at the shop and rented residential accommodation of his employer at Hamirpur. 38. Insofar as the happenings of 30.12.2009, at village Ling Bhagetu and those of 31.12.2009 at village Gutiana, are concerned, PW-9 Ravina is a star witness for the prosecution, though PW-17 Jyoti Devi is also a witness to the occurrence dated 30.12.2009, at village Ling Bhagetu. 39. As already noticed, the main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel on behalf of A-2 Pawan Kumar is that the three versions about the occurrence as stated by PW-9 Ravina initially to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C (Mark-D), thereafter before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW-9/A) and ultimately in the court as PW-9, suffer from glaring omissions, embellishments, improvements and inherent contradictions and as such cannot be safely relied upon to uphold his conviction and the consequence sentences imposed upon him under the impugned judgment/order. 40. 40. In such circumstances, it shall be appropriate to notice the deposition of Ravina in the court in chief examination as PW-9 in extenso, which reads as under:- “My parental house is situated at village Gutiana. Accused No.1 Piaro Devi present in the court today, is my real mother. I was married to Shri Ramesh Chand in the year 2002. Shri Rattan Chand is my father-in-law and my in-laws’ house is situated at village Dosarka, Tehsil Sujanpur. It is a talk of 28.12.2009 I had a domestic quarrel with my husband Ramesh Chand. Due to this domestic quarrel, I went to my sister-in-law’s house at village Khundian. Next day I all alone came to Sujanpur and from there I telephoned the God-brother of my brother-in-law Pappu. I telephoned from the STD Booth. He could not be contacted as his mobile found switched off. Thereafter I rang up Lala @ Surinder Kumar. Surinder Kumar was known to me and I told him regarding the quarrel with my husband, who called me at Hamirpur. I had a friendship with Surinder for the last one month from that day. I came to Gandhi Chowk Hamirpur where my boy friend Surinder Kumar owned a shop. He met me in his shop at Gandhi Chowk. Shri Surinder Kumar asked me to accompany him to Jawalaji. I narrated my domestic quarrel with Surinder Kumar and during this process I became emotional and wept and thereafter we went to Jawalaji. We both paid obeisance in the Jawalaji temple. We both attended evening Arti in the said temple. In the night we stayed in an inn i.e. big hall where about 20-22 men and women had stayed. In the morning we got up and also attended the Arti in the Mata Jawalaji temple. We went in the motorcycle of Surinder and he dropped me at Hamirpur. Thereafter I went to my maternal grand-mother’s house situated at village Ling Bhagetu. It is a talk of 30th December, 2009. From my maternal grand mother’s house, I telephoned my mother accused No.1 present in the court. telephoned from my maternal aunt’s mobile. My mother accused No.1 asked me regarding my whereabouts on being told so, my mother told me that my in-laws were in search of me. It is a talk of 30th December, 2009. From my maternal grand mother’s house, I telephoned my mother accused No.1 present in the court. telephoned from my maternal aunt’s mobile. My mother accused No.1 asked me regarding my whereabouts on being told so, my mother told me that my in-laws were in search of me. After about one hour my mother accused No.1 Piaro Devi and accused No.2 Pawan Kumar present in the court came in a vehicle in my maternal grand-mother’s house. (Witness pointed out towards accused No.1 Piaro Devi and accused No.2 Pawan Kumar present in the court today). (Witness started weeping). (On being asked she told that she is scared of from accused No.2 Pawan Kumar who is a dangerous person). Accused No.2 Pawan Kumar had asked me that where I was. On being replied that he had no business to enquire, the accused No.2 Pawan Kumar taken out a burning wood from the hearth and subjected me to beating. I suffered injuries on my arms and legs and back. My mother and maternal aunt had tried to rescue me from the clutches of accused No.2 Pawan Kumar. (On query being put by the Court, what concern accused No.2 Pawan Kumar had with you? The witness replied that accused No.2 Pawan Kumar was a frequent visiter to my mother’s house for the last 10-11 years and my father used to remain away from Hamirpur in connection with job.) Accused No.2 Pawan had a bad eye on me. Accused No.2 Pawan Kumar had proclaimed that I will be taken to my parental house Gutiana. I refused. Accused No.2 Pawan Kumar had dragged me in the upper room and pushed me in the stairs. The stairs were inside the house and I fell in the room of the ground floor of the house. The accused No.2 Pawan forcibly lifted me on his back and put me in the vehicle Tata Sumo at some distance. It was a talk of night at about 9/10 p.m. The vehicle Tata Sumo was being driven by accused No.2 Pawan Kumar. I was taken to village Gutiana to my parental house. After dropping me in my parental house, accused No.2 Pawan left my parental house. On that night I stayed in my parental house alongwith my mother and maternal grandmother. I was taken to village Gutiana to my parental house. After dropping me in my parental house, accused No.2 Pawan left my parental house. On that night I stayed in my parental house alongwith my mother and maternal grandmother. My maternal grand mother was not at my maternal uncles’ house and she was at my parental house. On that night I slept at my mother’s house. On next day i.e. on 31.12.2009 accused No.2 Pawan Kumar came to my parental house. Again accused No.2 had asked me with whom I had gone to Jawalaji. I falsely told that I was in my maternal uncle’s house. My mother ahd asked Pawan Kumar not to put such questions as I had already been married. The accused No.2 Pawan Kumar had taken a Drat from outside and caught me from the leg and proclaimed that he will cut my legs with Drat and will be killed. I raised crie3s. My mother accused No.1 and my maternal grandmother came to rescue me. The accused No.2 further threatened that in case I will not disclose the true facts I will be killed. I had written telephone number of Surinder which was kept in ladies’ purse. The said paper was taken out from ladies’ purse by accused Pawan Kumar and read the number. Accused No.2 Pawan Kumar had connected the cell number of Surinder Kumar from my mother’s cell. Shri Surinder Kumar had responded and accued No.2 Pawan Kumar had cut the phone. Accused No.2 Pawan Kumar again threatened me to tell the truth regarding my companionship with Surinder Kumar. Again I concealed my affairs with Surinder Kumar. Inside my house, accused caught me from the leg and asked me to telephone to Surinder Kumar on his cell number. The accused No.2 put the speaker on of the mobile set of my mother. Accused No.2 tutored me that I should call Surinder Kumar to village Gutiana. Under fear from accused No.2 Pawan Kumar, on telephone I invited Surinder Kumar to my parental house at village Gutiana to celebrate New Year. Surinder Kumar told me that he will respond after 10 minutes. Surinder Kumar telephoned me on the mobile of my mother. Surinder Kumar promised me to come to my parental house for celebration. Surinder Kumar telephoned me from Bhota and told me the probable time of his arrival. Surinder Kumar told me that he will respond after 10 minutes. Surinder Kumar telephoned me on the mobile of my mother. Surinder Kumar promised me to come to my parental house for celebration. Surinder Kumar telephoned me from Bhota and told me the probable time of his arrival. It is a talk started from afternoon till evening. Surinder Kumar reached Bijhari at 5 p.m. and telephoned me from there. Surinder Kumar on telephone had asked the location of my parental house. Surinder Kumar had enquired from me that who was present in my parental house, on which I had told Surinder Kumar that I am all alone as my mother had gone to my maternal uncle’s house and I was all alone. There were two more persons with accused No.2 Pawan Kumar and asked him to come little later. Two other companions of accused No.2 Pawan Kumar had also threatened to kill me. Accused No.2 told me to tell Surindr Kumar that my aunt is there and he should come later. I was a talk of 6 p.m. and it was darkness. Numerous calls were made. I told him that I will get him from the gate when I will get chance. Thereafter, accused No.2 Pawan Kumar and another Vickey and one another person had left for the gate where Surinder Kumar was waiting for me. The gate is at open place on the “Baba Balak Nath Road.” I identify accused No.3 Vicky present in the court. (Witness pointed out towards accused No.3 Vicky present in the court). I remained in the house of my mother. My mother had asked me to telephone Surinder to apprise the plan of accused No.2 and 3 but there was no balance in the mobile of my mother. Rest of the things I do not know. Next day I was dropped at my in-laws’ house by my mother. Telephone numbers I do not remember. No dandas were taken in my presence. Similar statement was also made by me before the Court.” 41. At this stage PW-9 Ravina was declared hostile. In cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she has admitted that mobile number of the deceased was 98174 00742. However, according to her she did not remember whether A-2 Pawan Kumar had asked for an iron rod. Similar statement was also made by me before the Court.” 41. At this stage PW-9 Ravina was declared hostile. In cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she has admitted that mobile number of the deceased was 98174 00742. However, according to her she did not remember whether A-2 Pawan Kumar had asked for an iron rod. She has denied that when he could not get iron rod he took a ‘danda’ in his hand or that it was a ‘bamboo danda’ having hammer. However, she has admitted that A-2 Pawan Kumar had possessed her family under threat; her mother had registered a case under Section 376 IPC against him. At that time she ( the witness) was unmarried. She has also admitted that A-2 Pawan Kumar had threatened her mother that whole of the family would be eliminated in case she deposed against him. 42. In further cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor she has disowned portions ‘A to A’ and ‘ B to B’ of her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Mark ‘D’, wherein she had implicated her mother A-1 Piaro Devi along with A-2 Pawan Kumar for rebuking and giving beatings to her to elicit from her as to with whom she had fled away and thus had put them to shame. However, she has admitted that her statement Ex.PW-9/A was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barser. 43. In further cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW-9 Ravina has stated that the deceased was friend of the aforesaid Pappu and she was equally acquainted to both of them. According to her, she was called by the police to the Police Station for the first time on 14.01.2010. She had not narrated the incident of 31.1.20009 to anybody including her in laws up till 14.1.2010. According to her, she had not disclosed full facts before the police on 14th January, as she had no faith in the police. She has volunteered to state that she had disclosed full facts in the statement before the Judicial Magistrate. It is admitted that she had not disclosed to the police or Magistrate that A-2 Pawan Kumar was having a bad eye on her. It is further stated by her that she had met the deceased for the first time in November 2009, at Hamirpur. It is admitted that she had not disclosed to the police or Magistrate that A-2 Pawan Kumar was having a bad eye on her. It is further stated by her that she had met the deceased for the first time in November 2009, at Hamirpur. He was introduced to her by the said Pappu. According to her, A-2 Pawan Kumar was jealous of her relations with the deceased. He even used to make calls to her at odd hours expressing his desire to establish “man and woman relations” with her and leave her husband Ramesh Chand. It is further stated by her that she had not disclosed these facts to the police or Magistrate as she was not questioned about it and that she has narrated these facts for the first time in the court in answer to the queries put by the learned defence counsel. In further cross examination she has stated that she wished that her mother A-1 Piaro Devi should be acquitted as she was not there “at the place of occurrence/crime and she committed no crime”. However, she has further stated that in case she has committed an offence, she should be convicted. The witness further goes to state that earlier she used to share her problems with the deceased and Pappu as aforesaid. She used to like the habits of Pappu, as he used to talk in “girlish” voice. However, thereafter she did not receive any call from pappu nor she called him. However, she has emphatically denied that she got the deceased murdered in connivance with Pappu. It is also denied that she wanted to eliminate the deceased as she felt ashamed due to disclosure of her friendship with him being a married woman having two children. 44. However, thereafter she did not receive any call from pappu nor she called him. However, she has emphatically denied that she got the deceased murdered in connivance with Pappu. It is also denied that she wanted to eliminate the deceased as she felt ashamed due to disclosure of her friendship with him being a married woman having two children. 44. A combined and harmonious reading of the three statements made by PW-9 Ravina, firstly to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., then before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and finally in the court, would go to show that the only difference between the same except a conscious bid on her part to absolve her mother A-1 Piaro Devi of any liability, which in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view her demeanour, as noticed by the learned trial Judge during the course of her examination, can be safely explained as natural conduct of a daughter placed in such a piquant situation, is that whereas the statement made by her in the court as PW-9 is quite detailed and descriptive, the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C is to the point and the statement made by her before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C is brief. 45. The version with regard to the happenings of 30.12.2009, as stated by PW-9 Ravina finds due corroboration from the testimony of her maternal aunt PW-17 Smt. Jyoti Devi. PW-31 Dr. Ram Pal Sharma has issued the medico legal certificate Ex.PW-31/A detailing injuries said to have been suffered by her during this incident. It was contended on behalf of the defence that though the allegation against A-4 Pawan Kumar was that he had given beatings to PW-9 Ravina with a burning piece of fuel wood, yet no such burn injury finds mention in MLC, Ex. PW-31/A. In this regard, suffice it to observe that PW-17 Smt. Jyoti Devi has stated in the later part of her chief examination at page 75 of the English record that “the said stick was burning and with struck, it was de-burnt”. Further more, whereas the injury was suffered on 31.12.2009, PW-9 Ravina was medically examined only on 14.01.2010 and by that time the injury had already healed leaving a scar. 46. Further more, whereas the injury was suffered on 31.12.2009, PW-9 Ravina was medically examined only on 14.01.2010 and by that time the injury had already healed leaving a scar. 46. Now while adverting to the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution against A-2 Pawan Kumar, it would be seen that the weapon of offence, hammer Ex.P-22 was recovered by the police vide memo Ex.PW-8/E pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/B made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, proved in evidence by PW-8 Sandeep Kumar. Ex. PW-8/D is the sketch of hammer Ex. P-22. 47. As per request made by the police vide application Ex.PW-16/A sample of blood of the deceased was also preserved for chemical examination, as is apparent from the postmortem report Ex.PW-16/D. The same was analyzed vide FSL report Ex.PZ-1 and was found to be of human origin of group ‘B’. As per FSL report Ex.PZ/2 human blood of group ‘B’ was found on the weapon of offence, hammer Ex.P-22 recovered by the police pursuant to the disclosure statement made by A-2 Pawan Kumar. This piece of evidence convincingly connects A-2 Pawan Kumar with commission of the crime, for which he was charged. Similarly, as per FSL reports Ex.PZ/1 and Ex.PZ/2 human blood of group ‘B’ was also found on the clothes of the deceased except socks, which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence and were taken into possession by the police and the clue materials such as blood stained soil and stones lifted by the police from the spot scene. Though blood was also found on the socks of the deceased, but the result in respect of blood group thereof was inconclusive. However, no blood was detected in eye/ear drops taken into possession by the police from the pants’ pocket of the deceased. 48. In pursuance of disclosure statement Ex.PW-10/B made by A-2 Pawan Kumar under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, keys and documents of the motorcycle bearing registration No. PB05 P4710 belonging to brother of the deceased PW-10 Raj Kumar, which at the material time was being used/operated by the deceased, were recovered by the police from jungle Kathiana vide memo Ex.PW-10/C, proved in evidence by PW-10 Raj Kumar. This is another piece of evidence in the chain of circumstances against the accused, at whose instance the said motorcycle was also recovered by the police from jungle Kathiana vide memo Ex.PW-10/A, though there is no corresponding disclosure statement qua the same. 49. A-2 Pawan Kumar had also got his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB02AC7103 recovered from the courtyard of A-1 Piaro Devi at village Gutiana vide memo Ex.PW-24/B. 50. The evidence collected by the police with regard to call details, tower locations and IMEI numbers comprising of Ex.PW-27/A-1 to A-9, Ex.PW-27/B and Ex.PW-27/C in respect of mobile phone number 98174 00742 of the deceased and mobile phone number 96252 89094 in the name of the aforesaid Smt. Kalshi Devi, maternal grand mother of PW-4 Sunil Kumar and PW-5 Anil Kumar and being used and operated at the relevant time by A-1 Piaro Devi, further lends corroboration to the case of the prosecution against A-2 Pawan Kumar. 51. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, PW-9 Ravina cannot be said to be an accomplice as contended on behalf of the defence. Even otherwise, an accomplice is a competent witness under Section 133 of the Evidence Act and a conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of such witness is not illegal. However, in the present case, the testimony of PW-9 Ravina finds due and sufficient corroboration from other ocular and circumstantial evidence obtaining on the record, as discussed hereinabove. 52. It was next contended by the defence that the deceased, who was involved in sending Indian nationals abroad and in the racket of fake currency, as admitted by his father PW-7 Shri Julphi Ram and brother PW-10 Raj Kumar and PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar, might have been killed by someone aggrieved by his such activities or in the alternative A-1 Piaro Devi and the aforementioned Pappu, who had equally strong motive, could have killed him. However, suffice it to say that such submissions are merely in the domain of far fetched imagination on the part of the accused and do not deserve any consideration in the face of overwhelming ocular and circumstantial evidence on record. 53. Though PW-6 Sanjeev Kumar has stated during cross-examination on behalf of A-3 Vicky Chaudhary that “accused No. 2 Pawan Kumar is a respectable person as he is Up Pardhan of G.P. Dalchehra”. And that “wife of accused No. 2 Pawan Kumar is a Govt. 53. Though PW-6 Sanjeev Kumar has stated during cross-examination on behalf of A-3 Vicky Chaudhary that “accused No. 2 Pawan Kumar is a respectable person as he is Up Pardhan of G.P. Dalchehra”. And that “wife of accused No. 2 Pawan Kumar is a Govt. school teacher” and “his father is a retired Head-master”, yet it would not amount to giving a clean chit to A-2 Pawan Kumar. 54. Even if the identification memo Ex.PW-10/D, whereby A2 Pawan Kumar is said to have identified the place of occurrence, is taken out of consideration being in the nature of an all embracing confession hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and for the reasons that the place of occurrence was already in the knowledge of the police and nothing was recovered in pursuance thereof, other evidence, direct and circumstantial, discussed hereinabove is sufficient in content and upto the mark to uphold the finding of guilt against him, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. Case against A-3 Vicky Chaudhary 55. The evidence against A-3 Vicky Chaudhary is firstly with regard to his presence at village Gutiana, as stated by PW-9 Ravina. Secondly, he is stated to have identified the place of occurrence vide memo, Ex. PW-8/A, proved in evidence by PW-8 Sandeep Kumar. And thirdly, pursuant to the disclosure statement, Ex. PW-12/A, proved in evidence by PW-12 Shri Bishan Chand Sharma, he is said to have got recovered ash, soil and some burnt pieces of wood/leaves from the courtyard of the cowshed belonging to one Baldev (brother of A-4 Sudershan Kumar Sharma), situate at Chakmoh, where he alongwith A-4 Sudershan Kumar Sharma had allegedly burnt clothes and mobile by sprinkling kerosene oil, vide memo, Ex. PW-12/B, also proved in evidence by PW-12, Shri Bishan Chand Sharma. 56. Insofar as the identification of A-3 Vicky Chaudhary by PW-9, Ravina, on 31.12.2009 at Gutiana is concerned, admittedly she was not knowing him earlier. According to her, she had seen him “for the first time in darkness on 31.12.2009” thereafter she had seen him on 03/04.08.2010 in the court at the time of her examination as a witness. Admittedly, no identification parade was held to get A-3 Vicky Chaudhary identified through PW-9 Ravina. According to her, she had seen him “for the first time in darkness on 31.12.2009” thereafter she had seen him on 03/04.08.2010 in the court at the time of her examination as a witness. Admittedly, no identification parade was held to get A-3 Vicky Chaudhary identified through PW-9 Ravina. Thus, it is a very weak piece of evidence to pin point with exactitude the identity of A-3 Vicky Chaudhary, being one of the friends of A-2 Pawan Kumar present alongwith him at Gutiana on 31.12.2009. 57. Memo, Ex. PW-8/A, whereby A-3 Vicky Chaudhary is said to have identified the place of occurrence can also not to be taken into consideration being in the nature of an all embracing confessional statement to the effect that he can identify the place situate in jungle Tropka, where he alongwith A-2 Pawan Kumar and A-4 Sudershan Kumar Sharma had murdered the deceased on 31.12.2009 during the night and thus hit under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 58. As far as disclosure statement, Ex. PW-12/A, and the consequent recovery vide memo, Ex. PW-12/B, are concerned, it would be seen that whereas as per the disclosure statement the clothes and mobile were said to have been burnt in front of the cowshed of the aforesaid Baldev and the same were recovered from the courtyard of the said cowshed vide memo, Ex. PW-12/B, to the contrary, according to PW-12 Shri Bishan Chand Sharma, who is a marginal witness to both the memos, the recovery was made from a place behind the cowshed of Baldev. This is a material contradiction which cannot be lightly overlooked and more so when the recovered ash and burnt pieces of wood/leaves were not sent for forensic examination to ascertain the nature of the residual contents therein. 59. Even otherwise A-3 Vicky Chaudhary was arrested by the police on 24.01.2010, as stated by PW-30 SI Satish Kumar. On 25.01.2010 he was remanded in police custody. The place of occurrence was allegedly demarcated by him vide the aforesaid memo, Ex. PW-8/A, on 26.01.2010. However, disclosure statement, Ex. PW-12/A, and the consequent recovery vide memo, Ex. PW-12/B, relate only to 28.01.2010 and are thus highly belated and as such do not inspire intrinsic confidence. On 25.01.2010 he was remanded in police custody. The place of occurrence was allegedly demarcated by him vide the aforesaid memo, Ex. PW-8/A, on 26.01.2010. However, disclosure statement, Ex. PW-12/A, and the consequent recovery vide memo, Ex. PW-12/B, relate only to 28.01.2010 and are thus highly belated and as such do not inspire intrinsic confidence. Further more, both the witnesses to the aforesaid disclosure statement and recovery memo, namely, PW12 Shri Bishan Chand Sharma, the then Pardhan Gram Panchayat Chakmoh and Shri Yash Pal Sharma, Ward Panch (not examined) appear to be mere chance witnesses, as according to them, they had gone to “Baba Balak Nath in order to see Kusti/Dangal fair” and had met the police while they were waiting for a bus near rain shelter at Degree College Chakmoh, when A-3 Vicky Chaudhary had allegedly made disclosure statement, Ex. PW-12/A, and got the consequent recovery effected vide memo, Ex. PW-12/B. 60. Further more, PW-6 Sanjeev Kumar, who has turned hostile to the prosecution case, has also not supported the prosecution version that on 01.01.2010 A-3 Vicky Chaudhary and A-4 Sudershan Kumar Sharma had hired car No. HP67-2959 belonging to Shri Jagtar Singh, Up Pradhan G.P. Bijhar, on which he (PW-6) was driver and that A-3 Vicky Chaudhary was also shown to him by the police on 24.01.2010. Accordingly, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor at quite length, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited out of him. 61. The above discussion brings us to hold that the evidence led by the prosecution against A-3 Vicky Chaudhary is neither sufficient in content nor up to the mark to fasten guilt against him, as has been done by the learned Trial Court and more so when PW-29 Inspector Baldev Singh and PW-30 SI Satish Kumar have admitted during cross-examination at pages 103 and 109 of the English record, respectively that A-3 Vicky Chaudhary had no intimacy of any type or link with A-1 Piaro Devi, the deceased and PW-9 Ravina. 62. In view of the above, the appeal filed by A-2 Pawan Kumar, being Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2010, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the appeal filed by A-3 Vicky Chaudhary, being Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2011, succeeds and is accordingly allowed. As a result A-3 Vicky Chaudhary is acquitted of the charges against him. 62. In view of the above, the appeal filed by A-2 Pawan Kumar, being Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2010, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the appeal filed by A-3 Vicky Chaudhary, being Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2011, succeeds and is accordingly allowed. As a result A-3 Vicky Chaudhary is acquitted of the charges against him. He shall be set free to his liberty forthwith unless required in any other process of law. The amount of fine of Rs.15,000/- imposed upon him under the impugned judgment/order dated 18.10.2010, if already realized, shall be liable to be refunded to him after the period for laying challenge against this judgment is over, in which event orders of the Hon’ble Appellate Court shall prevail. 63. Consequently, the impugned judgment/order dated 18.10.2010 shall stand modified accordingly.