Judgment Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Since both the above-captioned appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and order of conviction, these are being decided by this common judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No. 115/2010 has been jointly preferred by accused convicts Harwinder @ Sonu and Jasveer Kaur against their conviction under Section 302/34, 201/34 IPC in ST No. 13/2005 (Crime No. 193/2004), while connected Criminal Appeal No. 116/2010 has been filed by the accused convict Harwinder @ Sonu against his conviction under Section 177, 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act in ST No. 14/2005. 2. Since offences under Motor Vehicles Act were in connection with the crimes under the Indian Penal Code, so both the aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 13/2005 and Sessions Trial No. 14/2005 were clubbed and tried together. These were adjudicated by the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 6.4.2010, rendered by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. Appellants Harwinder @ Sonu and Jasveer Kaur (hereinafter referred to as ‘A1’ and ‘A2’ respectively) are real brother and sister. A1 and A2 were convicted for the offences under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and each one of them have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. For the offence under Section 201/34 IPC, each one of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. For the offences under Section 177 and 181 of the MV Act, fine of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 500/- respectively have been imposed on the accused Harwinder @ Sonu. 3. Deceased is Sukphal @ Titu, who was the husband of A2. There was yet another accused, namely, Karan Kapoor, who was chargesheeted along with the appellants, but during trial he met his natural death and, therefore, trial was abated against him. A1 resided in Sahibabad, District Gaziabad, while A2 used to reside along with his husband in Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Ludhiyana. Third accused Karan Kapoor was the neighbour of A2. A1 hired a taxi (Maruti Van) from the transport agency of his friend Vinay Kumar Sharma at Sahihabad on 18.10.2004 and set out for a pleasure trip along with A2, Sukhpal @ Titu and Karan Kapoor to Laxman Jhula, Neelkanth Mahadev, etc. via Haridwar. Nikesh Kumar Tiwari was the driver of the said taxi. A1 hired a taxi (Maruti Van) from the transport agency of his friend Vinay Kumar Sharma at Sahihabad on 18.10.2004 and set out for a pleasure trip along with A2, Sukhpal @ Titu and Karan Kapoor to Laxman Jhula, Neelkanth Mahadev, etc. via Haridwar. Nikesh Kumar Tiwari was the driver of the said taxi. On 19th, they came to Laxman Jhula, District Pauri and, therefrom in the evening they set out to Neelkanth Mahadev, a place located at a fair height. During this journey, the deceased Sukhpal @ Titu quarreled with A1 and A2. So, there was a continuous altercation among them. As per the prosecution story, A1 and A2, with the aid and assistance of Karan Kapoor, assaulted Sukhpal @ Titu while returning from Neelkanth Mahadev to Laxman Jhula and after throwing the dead body of Sukhpal from a height, A1 and A2 could also be able to remove Karan Kapoor from the way. He was also pushed from a height making him unconscious. 4. The rafters in the river Ganges somehow noticed the injured Karan Kapoor, who was lying unconscious beside the deceased Sukhpal @ Titu, and shifted him to the Rishikesh Hospital. This way, the deceased Sukhpal @ Titu’s dead body remained lying at the spot in the jungle almost hanging on the bank of river Ganges and it was discovered by one Udai Singh Negi, who informed the police on 21.10.2004 at 9.05 AM. The general diary entry of this information is Ex. Ka-2. So, the police took the dead body in its possession, the recovery memo of the body is Ex. Ka-3. Photographs of the dead body were snapped. Meanwhile, the police also came to know about the admission of Karan Kapoor in the Rishikesh Hospital and showed him the photographs of the dead body, but he expressed his inability to identify the deceased. Police also recovered one mobile phone of Motorola company from the pocket of the deceased and from the log of the call details contained in the cell phone, it was found that the last call was made on a particular number to Ludhiyana. Investigation Officer could find out that this last phone call was made to a landline number installed in the house of Karan Kapoor, which was found closed when the Investigation Officer reached there. Investigation Officer could find out that this last phone call was made to a landline number installed in the house of Karan Kapoor, which was found closed when the Investigation Officer reached there. He could also trace out Nirmal Kumar, a resident of Ludhiyana and the real brother of deceased Sukhpal @ Titu, who identified the body of the deceased and said that his brother Sukhpal @ Titu had started living in Sahibabad with his father-in-law Charanjeet Singh. A1 and A2 were also residing with Charanjeet Singh. When the Investigation Officer reached to Sahibabad in order to inquire Charanjeet Singh, then he disclosed about hiring of a taxi and the pleasure trip, as stated above. He further disclosed that on 20.10.2004, his daughter A2 and son A1 returned from the trip without taking along Sukhpal @ Titu and Karan Kapoor with them. Charanjeet Singh also identified the photographs of the deceased to be of his son-in-law Sukhpal @ Titu. Then the entire theme could be highlighted along with the identity of the taxi owner Vinay Kumar Sharma and the driver Nikesh Kumar Tiwari. 5. A1 and A2 were also arrested by the police on 24.10.2004 in the vicinity of the area where the crime was committed and it has further been revealed that on 22.10.2004, they had again left Sahibabad in the same taxi for the place of occurrence, where they all were arrested by the police. 6. Inquest report Ex. Ka-6 was prepared on 21.102004 at 10 AM. As per the inquest report, there were a number of injuries on the body of the deceased. Thereafter post-mortem was conducted. Post-mortem report is Ex. Ka-19. Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased: (1) Ligature mark 32 cm x 2 cm all around the neck, 9 cm below the right ear, 7 cm above the chin, 8 cm below the left ear. (2) Lacerated wound 12 cm x 9 cm x bone deep on both sides of head and skull. (3) Lacerated wound 11 cm x 5 cm x bone deep on the right side of the head. (4) Blue contusion 5 cm x 1 cm in front of the nose. (5) Multiple blue contusions in the area of 55 cm x 45 cm in the chest and opposite the stomach. (3) Lacerated wound 11 cm x 5 cm x bone deep on the right side of the head. (4) Blue contusion 5 cm x 1 cm in front of the nose. (5) Multiple blue contusions in the area of 55 cm x 45 cm in the chest and opposite the stomach. (6) Lacerated wound 8 cm x 3 cm bone deep in the middle of right hand, in the backside of the finger. (7) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep opposite the right wrist. (8) Lacerated wound 5 cm x .5 cm, muscle deep opposite the left wrist. In the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. 7. Police got recorded the statements of Nikesh Kumar Tiwari, Karan Kapoor, A1 and A2. Although A1 and A2 denied their participation in the crime, but Karan Kapoor disclosed the entire sequence of the occurrence and stated that A1 and A2 smothered the throat of Sukhpal @ Titu firstly by their hands and then strangulated him with the help of Chunni of A2 (Chunni is a long cloth used by the ladies to cover their bosom). He stated that A1 and A2 also threw him down the hill from a place of height in the same direction wherein the Titu’s dead body was thrown. He regained his consciousness on the next day and noticed that Titu’s dead body was lying on his body. Somehow, he could successfully dragged himself to the bank of river Ganges. His helpless position was noticed by the rafters when he shouted to them in order to attract their attention. Thus, he was shifted to the hospital. This statement of Karan Kapoor, made under Section 164 CrPC, is Ex. Ka-17. Investigation culminated into submission of chargesheet against all the three accused i.e. A1, A2 and Karan Kapoor. However, lateron Karan Kapoor met his natural death during the course of trial. So, the case was abated against him. 8. Prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. PW1 is Nikesh Kumar Tiwari, PW2 is S.I. Rajendra Singh, PW3 is Charanjeet Singh, PW4 is Vinay Kumar Sharma, PW5 is Udai Singh Negi, PW6 is Kundan Singh Negi, PW7 is Arvind Kumar, PW8 is Digamber Singh, PW9 is Dr. S.C. Srivastava and PW10 is Jawahar Lal. 9. 8. Prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. PW1 is Nikesh Kumar Tiwari, PW2 is S.I. Rajendra Singh, PW3 is Charanjeet Singh, PW4 is Vinay Kumar Sharma, PW5 is Udai Singh Negi, PW6 is Kundan Singh Negi, PW7 is Arvind Kumar, PW8 is Digamber Singh, PW9 is Dr. S.C. Srivastava and PW10 is Jawahar Lal. 9. After prosecution evidence, statements of A1 and A2 were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they denied their involvement in the incident and stated that police called them on the pretext of identifying the dead body, but arrested them when they reached at the spot. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and feel that although the case is of circumstantial nature, but all the parts of the chain are interlining together without any gap in between so as to arrive at the only conclusion of guilt against A1 and A2. Evidence produced by the prosecution is complete in itself and no part in the chain is missing. 11. PW1 Nikesh Kumar Tiwari was the driver of the said taxi. Although he has been declared hostile and did not support the prosecution version in his evidence, yet he has accepted his signatures upon the statement made by him under Section 164 CrPC. He admitted that he was the driver, getting Rs. 2200/- per month as his salary from Vinay Kumar Sharma. He has also admitted that his statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. He has accepted that at the time of recording his statement, he was alone in front of the Magistrate. He has further accepted that he seldom goes to Haridwar and Laxman Jhula on taxi service. Undoubtedly, after cross-examination by the prosecution, when he was made available for the cross-examination to the accused Counsel, then he has disclosed that he made his statement under Section 164 CrPC under threat of the police. The Magistrate, who recorded his statement under Section 164 CrPC, has also been examined in the instant trial as PW7. He has proved the recording of the statement as told by Nikesh Kumar Tiwari to him in the fearless surroundings. This witness Nikesh Kumar was the eyewitness of the incident and he did not deny his engagement as a driver upon the taxi service owned by Vinay Kumar Sharma, PW4. He has proved the recording of the statement as told by Nikesh Kumar Tiwari to him in the fearless surroundings. This witness Nikesh Kumar was the eyewitness of the incident and he did not deny his engagement as a driver upon the taxi service owned by Vinay Kumar Sharma, PW4. He could not reply specifically as to how this taxi was seized in the vicinity of the occurrence on 24.10.2004 while he himself was driving the same. So, the testimony of Nikesh Kumar Tiwari can be read so far as it supports the prosecution case because the position of law is settled in this regard that even the evidence of a hostile witness can be taken into consideration to the extent it corroborates the prosecution version. 12. PW2 is S.I. Rajendra Singh, who has worked out the sequence of the occurrence in the systematic way and has proved how he had linked the guilt to the A1 and A2 after receiving the information about lying of an unidentified dead body near the bank of river Ganges. He has proved how after taking the photographs of the dead body and recovery of the cell phone from the pocket of the deceased, he could be able to arrest the accused persons on 24.10.2004. At the instance of A1 and A2, he could also recover the clothes worn by them at the time of committing the crime. These clothes were bloodstained. The blade, which was used to cut the arteries of Sukhpal’s wrist, was also recovered at their instance. That apart, he also got matched, through the Forensic Science Laboratory, the piece of cloth which was of the pocket of Karan Kapoor, found inside the closed fist of the dead body. The piece of cloth and the button upon that cloth were also got matched from the cloth of the shirt, which Karan Kapoor was found wearing at the time of his admission in the hospital. So, it is a corroborative evidence to strengthen the fact of occurrence by A1 and A2 along with Karan Kapoor. 13. So far as the statement of Karan Kapoor, made under Section 164 CrPC is concerned, though he has admitted the incident before the Magistrate, and the same has been proved by the Magistrate in the Court making it as Ex. Ka-17, but the same is not admissible in evidence being self-exculpatory. 13. So far as the statement of Karan Kapoor, made under Section 164 CrPC is concerned, though he has admitted the incident before the Magistrate, and the same has been proved by the Magistrate in the Court making it as Ex. Ka-17, but the same is not admissible in evidence being self-exculpatory. So, the learned Court below has erred in placing the reliance upon the statement of Karan Kapoor, made under Section 164 CrPC, as a corroborative piece of evidence as per provisions of Section 30/33 of the Indian Evidence Act. Nonetheless, ample evidence is available on the record to prove the complicity of A1 and A2 in the crime. 14. We gather from the evidence on record that the deceased Sukhpal @ Titu was last seen in the company of A1 and A2 on 18.10.2004, when they all had left for the pleasure trip of Laxman Jhula and thereafter the deceased was never seen alive. This fact has also been proved by the real father of A1 and A2, along with other facts which are also evident from the entire testimony available on the record. 15. PW3 Charanjeet Singh has proved that on 20.10.2004, when his son Harwinder @ Sonu (A1) and daughter Jasveer Kaur (A2) returned from the pleasure trip, they did not bring with themselves Sukhpal @ Titu, who had left the house on 18.10.2004 with them. So, PW3 Charanjeet Singh is also a material witness of the prosecution and has proved the last seen evidence of the case. 16. PW4 Vinay Kumar Sharma is the owner of the taxi. He has admitted his signature upon the FIR, Ex. Ka-14, given by him in the police station Laxman Jhula. Although he has become hostile to the prosecution and did not ratify the version, which he himself had given in writing to the police, yet he has admitted his signature upon the same. So, his testimony before the Court is not believable because he could not explain as to how his vehicle was seized within the territory of Police Station Laxman Jhula, which was in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence and he had got it released from the Court. So, his testimony before the Court is not believable because he could not explain as to how his vehicle was seized within the territory of Police Station Laxman Jhula, which was in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence and he had got it released from the Court. So, his testimony in the Court is not believable and it is evident that he was telling a white lie because his demeanor was also noted by the Court that all the time he was evading the questions and did not give lucid answer to those questions. 17. PW5 is Udai Singh Negi, who had informed the police regarding lying of the dead body in a gorge near the bank of river Ganges and he has proved all the entries made in this regard. PW7 Arvind Kumar is the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the statement under Section 164 CrPC of the witnesses, as is discussed hereinabove. PW8 Digamber Singh is simply a witness of inquest report and has proved the same. PW9 is Dr. S.C. Srivastava, who conducted the autopsy and has proved the post-mortem report Ex. Ka-19, which he had prepared during the course of conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 18. DW1 Mahipal Singh is a resident of Sahibabad. A1 was the tenant in his house. He has stated that on 23.10.2004, police personnel came to his house and knocked the door and took away A1 and A2 from his house. His evidence is not believable for the reason that he could not explain that how the police personnel knocked the first floor of his residence leaving the dwelling unit of A1 and A2 located on the ground floor of his building. He has also accepted that there is big gate of the entire house. So, the natural course of police personnel would have been to knock the door of A1 and A2 after taking the entry from the big gate, rather than to go on the first floor and knock the door of the landlord. So, his evidence is not believable and we discard the same. 19. From our above discussion of the evidence available on record, it is clear that the chain of the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused persons is complete and the charges against them are well proved. So, his evidence is not believable and we discard the same. 19. From our above discussion of the evidence available on record, it is clear that the chain of the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused persons is complete and the charges against them are well proved. As regards holding the accused Harwinder @ Sonu guilty for the offences under Section 177 & 181 of the MV Act, we find that on the relevant date and time he was found driving the vehicle without valid papers including the driving license. So, he has rightly been convicted for the said offences. As such, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction as recorded by the trial court. Consequently, we dismiss both these appeals. Appellants are already in jail. They shall serve out the remaining period of their sentence. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the trial court record, be sent to the court below for compliance.