JUDGMENT 1. - Convicted of offences under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed to undergo one year of simple imprisonment in default thereof, vide judgment dated 28.7.2004 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, the appellants namely Sita Ram (A-1), Chuni Lal (A- 2) and Mahendra Singh (A-3), have approached this Court. Since both these appeals arise out of 'the same impugned judgment, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 7.5.2003 at about 3.45 A.M., Ladu Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) before Amarjeet Singh Bedi (PW-19), the S.H.O. Police Station Merta City. Ladu Singh (PW-1) claimed that on 6.5.2003 around 8 0' clock at night, his grand-son, Ajeet Singh (the deceased in the present case) was at his house. A-3, Mahendra Singh, came to his house to fetch Ajeet Singh. At that time, his daughter-in-law, Saya Kanwar (PW- 12) and granddaughter, Angrage Kanwar (PW-6), were in the house. A- 3 told Ajeet Singh to come with him as he wanted to go for answering the call of nature. Since Ajeet Singh did not come back home by 9.30-10.00 P.M., he, along with Om Singh and Bhagwan Singh, went out searching for him. However, they could not either locate Ajeet Singh, or A-3 in the village. They met Mangi Lal Meghwal (PW-13), who told them that he had seen Ajeet Singh being taken on a motorcycle by A-1, A-2 and A-3. The said motorcycle was being driven by A-1. They were travelling towards the village Ren. He was also informed that Ishwar Singh (PW-5) had also seen the accused-appellants taking Ajeet Singh with them. Furthermore, according to him, he took Om Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Narpat Singh (PW-10), in a jeep belonging to Jassaram, and went out looking for Ajeet Singh. Around 2 O'clock at night, they reached a place called Dhonigaur. At the place, they saw A-1, A-2 and A-3 riding on a motorcycle at a great speed. They tried to stop the accused-appellants. However, they did not stop. Since their suspicion was aroused, they stopped the jeep and searched for Ajeet Singh. Near the Dhonigaur Mazar (a holy shrine belonging to the Muslim Community), they saw a man lying in blood. They tried to stop the accused-appellants. However, they did not stop. Since their suspicion was aroused, they stopped the jeep and searched for Ajeet Singh. Near the Dhonigaur Mazar (a holy shrine belonging to the Muslim Community), they saw a man lying in blood. When they went near the body, they realised that it was his grand-son, Ajeet Singh. At that time, Ajeet Singh was wearing an undershirt and half-pant, and his body was lying face down. They noticed that he had suffered injuries on the left side of his head from which blood had oozed out. They discovered that Ajeet Singh had already expired. Near the body, a few pieces of stones were lying soaked in blood. According to him, his grand-son, Ajeet Singh, has been killed by A-1, A-2 and A-3 due to an animosity. He informed the police that the dead body is still lying near the Mazar. On the basis of this report, the police chalked out a formal F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 142/2003 (Ex.P-2) for offences under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 3. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses and submitted forty-four documents. The defence, in turn, examined two witnesses and submitted nine documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence, these appeals before this Court. 4. Mr. Vineet Jain and Mr. Gaurav Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, have raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. 5. Secondly, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the learned Judge has failed to consider the fact that all the links in the chain of circumstances do not unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. 6. Thirdly, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimonies of Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) for establishing that Ajeet Singh, the deceased, was last seen in the appellants' company. According to both these witnesses, they had seen the deceased riding on a motorcycle along with the accused-appellants. Moreover, the prosecution has also produced Sumer Singh (PW-3), Narpat Singh (PW-10) and Kishore Singh (PW-11) in order to create the evidence of last seen. However, there are certain glaring contradictions which undermine the trustworthiness of these witnesses. According to both these witnesses, they had seen the deceased riding on a motorcycle along with the accused-appellants. Moreover, the prosecution has also produced Sumer Singh (PW-3), Narpat Singh (PW-10) and Kishore Singh (PW-11) in order to create the evidence of last seen. However, there are certain glaring contradictions which undermine the trustworthiness of these witnesses. As far as Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) are concerned, according to the testimony of Ladu Singh (PW-1), the complainant, both these persons had informed him about the fact that they had seen the accused-appellants along with Ajeet Singh. However, according to the testimonies of Smt. Angrage Kanwar (PW-6), the sister of the deceased, and Smt. Saya Kanwar (PW-12), the mother of the deceased, while they went out searching for Ajeet Singh, they met Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) who told them that they had seen the deceased in the company of the accused-appellants. Subsequently, it is they who had gone back to their house and informed Ladu Singh (PW-1) about the information given by Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13). Thus, the prosecution has produced two contradictory evidence with regard to the disclousure made by Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13). Since Smt. Angrage Kanwar (PW-6) and Smt. Saya Kanwar (PW-12) have not been declared as hostile witnesses by the prosecution, the prosecution is bound by their testimonies. However, if they are believed, then the testimonies of Ladu Singh (PW-1), Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) become suspect. 7. Fourthly, as far as Kishore Singh (PW-11) is concerned, in the F.I.R., Ladu Singh (PW-1) does not mention the fact that after Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) had told him about the fact of last seen, he had gone to Kishore Singh (PW-11) in village Ren. But, in his examination-in-chief, he not only discloses this fact, but also claims that Kishore Singh had told him that he, too, had seen Ajeet Singh in the company of the accused-appellants. According to the learned counsel, since Kishore Singh (PW-11) is the uncle of the deceased, therefore, he is being produced as a witness of last seen. But as his name has not been mentioned in the F.I.R., he is a concocted witness. 8. According to the learned counsel, since Kishore Singh (PW-11) is the uncle of the deceased, therefore, he is being produced as a witness of last seen. But as his name has not been mentioned in the F.I.R., he is a concocted witness. 8. Fifthly, although Ladu Singh (PW-1) claims that he was accompanied by Om Singh and Bhagwan Singh, but, neither of them have been produced by the prosecution as a witness. Therefore, the prosecution has withheld material witnesses. Hence, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution by the learned Judge. But the learned Judge has failed to do so. 9. Sixthly, instead of producing, Bhagwan Singh and Om Singh, as a witness, the prosecution has produced Narpat Singh (PW-10) only because he is related to the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has produced an interested witness. Therefore, the testimony of Narpat Singh (PW-10) is equally doubtful. 10. Seventhly, although the prosecution has relied upon the recovery of clothes of deceased and on the recovery of his wallet and his wrist-watch, yet even these recoveries are doubtful. For, the prosecution has distributed the recoveries of these three articles to three different accused-persons. While the wallet was allegedly recovered from A-1, the T-shirt, worn by the deceased, was allegedly recovered from A-2, his wrist-watch was allegedly recovered from A-3. Moreover, the wallet and the clothes worn by A-1 were recovered on two different dates, although they were recovered from the same room. Furthermore, the clothes of the accused-appellants, recovered at their instance, did not show the presence of blood. But, according to the FSL.report (Ex.P-44), the clothes worn by the accused-appellants showed the presence of blood group 'A' - the blood group of the deceased. 11. Eighthly, the prosecution has not eliminated the possibility that the accused themselves may belong to the blood group 'A'. Therefore, the recoveries did not connect the accused-appellants to the alleged offence. 12. Ninethly, the prosecution has also failed to prove the motive for the commission of alleged crime. Although Ladu Singh (PW-1) has claimed that a year prior to the incident, Ajeet Singh's father had an altercation with Mahendra Singh's father. Therefore, an animosity existed. But it is too weak a motive for commission of murder. Moreover, according to the witnesses, despite the altercation between Ajeet Singh's father and Mahendra Singh's father, Ajeet Singh and Mahendra Singh continued to be friends. Therefore, an animosity existed. But it is too weak a motive for commission of murder. Moreover, according to the witnesses, despite the altercation between Ajeet Singh's father and Mahendra Singh's father, Ajeet Singh and Mahendra Singh continued to be friends. Since, the motive has not been proven, an essential link is conspicuously missing in the present case. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, the learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the prosecution has succeeded in creating a complete chain of circumstances which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused-appellants. 14. Secondly, according to Ladu Singh (PW-1), Smt. Angrage Kanwar (PW-6) and Smt. Saya Kanwar (PW-12), while they were at home, A-3 had come to their house and taken Ajeet Singh with him. After Ajeet Singh had left the house, he never came back. According to Ishwar Singh (PW-5), Kishore Singh (PW-11) Mangi Lal (PW-13), all three of them had seen the deceased in the company of the accused-appellants. Hence, there is strong evidence of last seen. 15. Thirdly, even if there may be a contradiction with regard to the disclosure made by Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13), but the fact remains that according to Ladu Singh (PW-1), Sharwanram Jat (PW-15), the driver of the jeep, an independent witness, Narpat Singh (PW-10) and Sumer Singh (PW-3) all of them had seen the accused-appellants coming out of the Mazar on a motorcycle. When they had tried to stop the accused-appellants, the accused-appellants had fled away. Suspecting their behaviour, Ladu Singh and his party had searched near the Mazar and had discovered the dead body of Ajeet Singh. Hence, immediately prior to the discovery of the dead body, the accused-appellants were seen near the scene of crime. Hence, the prosecution had clearly established the commission of the offence by the accused-appellants. 16. Fourthly, in the clothes of the accused appellants, which were recovered at their instance, the FSL had found blood group 'A' which was the blood group of the deceased. Even on the stones recovered at the scene of crime, the FSL had discovered blood group 'A'. It is highly unlikely that all three accused-appellants would have the same blood group. Thus, obviously their clothes were stained with the blood group of the deceased. 17. Even on the stones recovered at the scene of crime, the FSL had discovered blood group 'A'. It is highly unlikely that all three accused-appellants would have the same blood group. Thus, obviously their clothes were stained with the blood group of the deceased. 17. Lastly, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellants have neither explained the evidence of last seen, nor explained the presence of the blood of the deceased on their clothes. Since these facts were in the knowledge of the accused appellants, under Section 106 of Evidence Act, they were required to explain the same. Their silence speaks volumes about their culpability. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case. Hence, he has supported the impugned judgment. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor has echoed the arguments raised by Mr. Ranjeet Joshi. Hence, they need not be repeated. 19. Reiterating the principle with regard to burden of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in the case of Mohd. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 317 , the Apex Court observed as under: In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are to be cogently and firmly established. The circumstances so proved must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It should from a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and non else. It has to be considered within. all human probability and not in a fanciful manner. In order to sustain-conviction circumstantial evidence must be complete and must point towards the guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with his innocence. No hard and-fast rule can be laid down to say that particular circumstances are conclusive to establish guilt. It is basically a question of appreciation of evidence which exercise is to be done in the facts and circumstances of each case. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants have tried to demolish the testimonies of Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) on the ground that there is a contradiction in the prosecution case on the point as to whom did they reveal the fact about last seen. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants have tried to demolish the testimonies of Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) on the ground that there is a contradiction in the prosecution case on the point as to whom did they reveal the fact about last seen. A bare perusal of the testimony of Ladu Singh (PW-1) clearly reveals that in his examination-in-chief, he claims that while he and Smt. Angrage Kanwar (PW-6) and Smt. Saya Kanwar (PW-12) were searching for Ajeet Singh, they met with Mangi Lal Meghwal (PW-13) who asked them as to whom they were looking for? Mangi Lal told them that he had seen Ajeet Singh with the accused appellants. At that time, Ishwar Singh (PW-5) also came and told them about the same fact. According to Ladu Singh (PW-1), he along with Narpat Singh (PW-10), Bhawani Singh, Om Singh went to village Ren. Kishore Singh (PW-11) had also told them that he had seen the accused-appellants with the deceased. 21. The testimony of Ladu Singh (PW-1) is buttressed by the testimony of Ishwar Singh (PW-5). According to Ishwar Singh (PW-5), around between 10.00 to 11.00 PM, Ladu Singh (PW-1), Bhawani Singh and Narpat Singh (PW-10) were looking for Ajeet Singh. According to him, he informed them that he had seen Ajeet Singh along with the accused-appellants. Similarly, according to Mangi Lal (PW-13), he had also informed Ladu Singh (PW-1), Narpat Singh (PW-10) and Om Singh about the said fact. 22. However, according to Smt. Angrage Kanwar (PW-6) and Saya Kanwar(PW-12) when they had gone into the village looking for Ajeet Singh, in front of his house, Mangi Lal (PW-13) told them that he had seen the deceased along with the accused-appellants. Similarly, Ishwar Singh (PW-5) told them the same fact. According to them, they went back home and informed Ladu Singh (PW-1) about the information received by them from Mangi Lal and Ishwar Singh. Thereafter, Ladu Singh (PW-1) went out searching for Ajeet Singh, along with Narpat Singh, Om Singh and Bhawani Singh. Thus, there seems to be a contradiction as to whom Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) disclosed the fact of last seen. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, a serious contradiction, on a major issue, casts a grave doubt on the trustworthiness of these witnesses. 23. Thus, there seems to be a contradiction as to whom Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) disclosed the fact of last seen. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, a serious contradiction, on a major issue, casts a grave doubt on the trustworthiness of these witnesses. 23. This argument may appear to be forceful in the first blush, but it loses its strength in a deeper appreciation of evidence. Firstly, the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (once a liar is always a liar) is inapplicable in India. Therefore, even if the witnesses have not revealed the truth about to whom Ishwar Singh (PW-5) or Mangi Lal (PW-13) had first revealed about the last seen, even then it would not weaken the testimony of Ladu Singh (PW-1), of Smt. Angrage Kanwar (PW-6), and of Smt. Saya Kanwar (PW-12). 24. Moreover, a deeper examination of the evidence clearly reveals that according to Ladu Singh (PW-1), Angrage Kanwar (PW-6) and Smt. Saya Kanwar (PW-12) while they were at their house, A-3 had come to their house and had taken Ajeet Singh with him. Thus, there is the evidence of these three witnesses to prove the last seen viz-a-viz A-3. Moreover, according to Kishore Singh (PW- 11), he too had seen the deceased along with the accused-appellants. Although the learned counsel for the appellants have challenged the testimony of Kishore Singh (PW-11) on the ground that he was not mentioned in the F.I.R., but a F.I.R. is not meant to be encyclopedia in its scope [Ref. to State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 ]. Therefore, even if Ladu Singh (PW-1), the complainant, has not mentioned the fact that Kishore Singh (PW-11) had told him that he had seen the deceased along with the accused-appellants in the F.I.R., even then it would not dilute the veracity of Kishore Singh's testimony. 25. The learned counsel has also challenged the Kishore Singh's testimony on the ground that he was related to the deceased and to the complainant party. Hence, he is an interested witness. However, merely because a witness is an interested one, it does not mean that his testimony should be discarded totally. The fact that a witness is an interested one merely puts the Court on a guard and compels the Court to seek corroboration from other evidence. 26. Hence, he is an interested witness. However, merely because a witness is an interested one, it does not mean that his testimony should be discarded totally. The fact that a witness is an interested one merely puts the Court on a guard and compels the Court to seek corroboration from other evidence. 26. Furthermore, once Ladu Singh (PW-1) was informed that the accused-appellants had taken the deceased towards the village Ren, considering the fact that Kishore Singh (PW-11) had a shop in village Ren, it would but be natural for Ladu Singh (PW-1) and his party to contact Kishore Singh (PW-11) who is a relative. Thus, there is nothing unnatural about Ladu Singh (PW-1) coming to the shop Kishore Singh (PW-11) and Kishore Singh (PW-11) informing Ladu Singh (PW-1) about the fact that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused-appellants. 27. Most importantly, while Ladu Singh (PW-1), Narpat Singh (PW-10), Kishore Singh (PW-11) and Sharwanram Jat (PW-15), the jeep driver, were searching for Ajeet Singh, they saw the accused-appellants coming out of the Mazar on a motorcycle. According to Sharwanram Jat (PW-15), an independent witness, when he was driving the jeep from Ren to Mazar Peer Baba, they saw the accused appellants coining out of the Mazar on a Yamaha motorcycle. Although these witnesses called out the accused-appellants, but they sped away. Therefore, Ladu Singh and others became suspicious, they searched for Ajeet Singh in the campus of the Mazar, they discovered his body. Obviously, immediately before the dead body was recovered, the accused-appellants were seen near the scene of the crime. Therefore, even if Ishwar Singh (PW-5) and Mangi Lal (PW-13) are not to be believed for the evidence of last seen, nonetheless the evidence of Ladu Singh (PW-1), Angrage Kanwar (PW-6), Saya Kanwar (PW-12) along with the testimonies of Kishore Singh (PW-11) and Sharwan Ram Jat (PW-15) are sufficient to link the accused-appellants to the alleged crime. 28. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the recoveries on the ground that the recovery of his own clothes and of the wallet from A-1 were made on two different dates, although the articles were recovered from the same room. However, merely because the recoveries were made on two different dates from the same place, would not dilute the veracity of the recovery. However, merely because the recoveries were made on two different dates from the same place, would not dilute the veracity of the recovery. For, the recoveries have been supported by the independent recovery witnesses, namely, Sumer Singh (PW-3), Prabhu Puri (PW-4) and Bhagirath Bishnoi (PW-14). 29. The learned counsel has also contended that according to the recovery memo of the white pant, and blue T-shirt belonging to A-1, the word 'khoon' (blood) has been over-written. Therefore, the said recovery becomes suspect. However, according to the FSL Report (Ex.P-44), blood group 'A' was discovered on the blue T-shirt and the white pant of A-1. The blood group belonged to the deceased. Moreover, even from the trouser recovered from A-2, a trouser belonging to A-2, blood group 'A' was discovered on the trouser. Similarly, from the trouser and shirt of A-3, blood group 'A' was discovered on the clothes. Blood group 'A' was also discovered on the stones recovered from the scene of crime. According to the FSL report, the blood-group 'A' belonged to the deceased. Therefore, the clothes worn by the accused were smeared with blood of the deceased. Since the recoveries of the clothes of the accused have been supported by the independent witnesses, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the recoveries. 30. The learned counsel for the appellants have also contended that the prosecution should have eliminated the possibility that the blood group 'A' did not belong to the accused-appellants. Considering the fact that blood group 'A' was discovered on the clothes worn by the appellants, considering the fact that blood group 'A' belonged to the deceased, it is highly unlikely that all the accused appellants also belonged to blood group W. Therefore, merely because the prosecution has not eliminated the possibility that the accused persons did not belong to the blood group 'A', even then it would not weaken the case of the prosecution. 31. Once the blood of the deceased was discovered on the clothes of the accused-persons, it was for the accused-persons to explain the presence of the blood on their clothes. However, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have failed to do so. 32. The learned counsel for the appellants have also contended that the prosecution has claimed a motive for crime, but the motive is too weak for the commission of crime. However, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have failed to do so. 32. The learned counsel for the appellants have also contended that the prosecution has claimed a motive for crime, but the motive is too weak for the commission of crime. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of a motive is seen as strong link in the chain of circumstances. However, the lack of motive or the lack of proof of motive in case of circumstantial evidence does not weaken the case of the prosecution. Moreover, no straight-jacket formula can be laid down for deciding the strength and weakness of the motive of crime. Therefore, even if a 'weak' motive was pleaded by the prosecution, even then it would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 33. Considering the testimonies of Ladu Singh (PW-1), Smt. Angrage Kanwar (PW-6), and Saya Kanwar (PW-12) along with the testimonies of Narpat Singh (PW-10), Kishore Singh (PW-11) and of Shrwanram Jat (PW-15) considering the recoveries of clothes worn by the accused-appellants which were stained with the blood of the deceased, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a chain of circumstances which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused-appellants. 34. For the reasons stated above this Court does not find any merit in these appeals, the same are, hereby, dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******