JUDGMENT : HASNAIN MASSODI, J. Station house Officer, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu, on 9-5-2003 presented a charge-sheet against the present appellant-Mohd. Yousuf Shah and two others, namely, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Sohan Lal, before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging therein that the appellant on 12-3-2003 at Nowabad, Bathindi, called a 10 years old boy, from the neighbourhood to his house, committed sodomy on him and thereafter, strangulated the victim to death. It was further alleged that the appellant approached the co-accused Mohd. Saleem Khan for his help to do away with the dead body of deceased-Owais Rashid ' that the co-accused Mohd. Saleem Khan and Sohan Lal, persuaded Pritam Singh alias Bittu S/o Bhagat Singh-driver, to provide his vehicle (Minibus-407) bearing Registration No. 1973-JK02P on the pretext that the vehicle was to carry a Bharat from Bathindi and lead him to the residence of the appellant where dead body of Owais Rashid put in a gunny bag was loaded in the vehicle and taken away from the spot to accomplish the intended purpose. It was alleged that the vehicle was intercepted by Police Naka Party headed by Tilak Raj Sharma, SHO Police Station, Channi at 9.15 p.m. near Sector-7 Trikuta Nagar/Channai Himat near railway crossing and the dead body was recovered from the vehicle. 2. The investigation was claimed to have substantiated that the accused on March 12, 2003 had taken the deceased Owais Rashid to his home at Bathindi and committed sodomy on him and when Owais Rashid called for help, to have strangulated him with a towel, to death. The witnesses whom the prosecution expected to prove the prosecution case, were listed in the charge-sheet and the material that the prosecution expected to lend support to its case was appended to the charge-sheet and produced before the Court. 3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court Jammu for trial. The Trial Court on going through the charge-sheet, material appended thereto and upon hearing counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor found it, to disclose the grounds for presuming that the appellant and other two accused had committed the offences alleged in the charge-sheet. The appellant was formally charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 377, 201, 511, RPC and Mohd. Saleem Khan and Sohan Lal for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 511, RPC. The appellant was formally charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 377, 201, 511, RPC and Mohd. Saleem Khan and Sohan Lal for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 511, RPC. The accused denied the charge making it necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the charges. 4. Prosecution of 31 witnesses, listed in column 6 of the charge-sheet, examined only 24 witnesses, who appeared in the witness box to substantiate the prosecution case were PWs Payare Krishan HC, Tilak Raj Sharma, Fiaz Ahmed, Pawan Kumar Constable, Jafar lqbal, Mohd. Latif, Uttam Singh, Bhakhtiyhar Khanday, Dilshada, Bashir Ahmad Khanday, Azaz Ahmed, Nazir Ahmed, Mohd. Shafi Wani, Mudsar, Neeraj Bhagat, Arun Kumar, Raj Kumar, Hari Singh, Masood Ahmed Bhat, Balwant Singh Tehsildar, Mool Raja, Scientific Officer FSL, Dr. Bashir Ahmed Targwal, Davinder Singh and Karnaljeet Singh. The prosecution witnesses who for one or the other reason stayed away are : Ishaq Mirza, HC 596, Naresh Kumar, Anil Luthra, Rakesh Bakshi and K. K. Raina. 5. The incriminatory material come across in the prosecution evidence was put to the appellant and other accused in terms of Section 342, Cr. P. C. on 24-9-2011. The appellant and co-accused denied veracity of the prosecution evidence and insisted that they were being falsely implicated in the case. 6. The appellant expressed ignorance about the investigation claimed to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer including the documents like seizure memos etc. prepared during investigation. The appellant denied that in the evening of 12-3-2003 any vehicle stopped outside his residence or that the dead body of Owais Rashid was taken from his residence and put in the vehicle. The appellant refuted the statements made by PWs Bakhtiar, Bashir Khanday, Ajaz Ahmed Mir and Dilshada to the effect that the deceased was last seen with the appellant; that the appellant was nervous when PWs came to his residence to enquire about the deceased. The appellant reiterated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. The appellant also denied to have made any disclosure statement or to have led the Investigating Officer and his team for recovery of the items mentioned in the disclosure statements and helped the Investigating Officer in recovering such material/articles. The appellant reiterated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. The appellant also denied to have made any disclosure statement or to have led the Investigating Officer and his team for recovery of the items mentioned in the disclosure statements and helped the Investigating Officer in recovering such material/articles. Explaining his signatures on various documents like disclosure memos, recovery memos, the appellant came up with the stand that he was tortured while in police custody and as he because of fear, he put his signatures wherever he was asked to do so by the Investigating Officer. The appellant denied that the prosecution material-towel allegedly used to strangulate the deceased to death was recovered at his instance. The appellant has made a categoric statement that he was not at his residence on the day of alleged occurrence; that he was away on his shop and returned home at 6.00 p. m.; that he on reaching his home came to know that the deceased had gone missing and joined search for the deceased. The appellant denied that his brother, mother or tenants were at his residence. The appellant making an effort to trace the motive of death of Owais Rashid was stated that father of the deceased and his uncle used to quarrel with each other and the appellant would intervene between the brothers; that the tenants in the house of the appellant were also related to the deceased and that the appellant was being deliberately implicated by them. 7. The accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan, while explaining the incriminatory material in the prosecution evidence against him, denied that he had approached PW-Pritam Singh, driver of vehicle (Minibus-407 bearing Registration No. JK02P/1973) and persuaded him to provide the vehicle on hire, led him to the house of the appellant and loaded the dead body, put in a gunny bag, in the vehicle or that the vehicle was given a chase by the locals and he rushed away from the spot. The accused has feigned ignorance about the documents like seizure memos etc. prepared by the Investigating Officer. The accused without giving any explanation refuted all the statements made by the prosecution witnesses and insisted that he was being falsely implicated in the case. The other accused, namely, Sohan Lal alias Sonu like Mohd. The accused has feigned ignorance about the documents like seizure memos etc. prepared by the Investigating Officer. The accused without giving any explanation refuted all the statements made by the prosecution witnesses and insisted that he was being falsely implicated in the case. The other accused, namely, Sohan Lal alias Sonu like Mohd. Saleem Khan denied all the incriminatory material with which he was confronted and insisted that he was being falsely implicated in the case. The appellant and his other two accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. 8. The Trial Court on October 17, recorded the satisfaction that the case was not one where acquittal in terms of Section 273, Cr. P. C. could be recorded and that the accused were to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their defence. The appellant and other accused did not adduce any evidence in their defence. The accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan absconded and was proceeded under Section 512, Cr. P. C. 9. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 29-3-2012 held the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 511, RPC and accused-Sohan Lal guilty of offences punishable under Sections 201, 511, RPC. The appellant and accused Sohan Lal were accordingly convicted for the aforesaid offences. As accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan absconded during trial after statement under Section 342, Cr. P.C. was recorded. The judgment was not pronounced against the accused. The appellant was sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302, RPC, to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 377, RPC, to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201, RPC and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 511, RPC. The accused-Sohan Lal alias Sonu was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offences punishable under section 201, RPC and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 511, RPC. 10. The appellant has come up with Criminal Appeal on hand to question his conviction for the aforesaid offences and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 10,000/- for offences punishable under section 201, RPC and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 511, RPC. 10. The appellant has come up with Criminal Appeal on hand to question his conviction for the aforesaid offences and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Conviction and sentence are questioned on the grounds that the Trial Court failed to make proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, to bring home guilt to the appellant. It is pleaded that the case against the appellant is based exclusively on circumstantial evidence and the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that in a case where there is no direct evidence to connect the accused to the alleged occurrence and the prosecution relies on the indirect or circumstantial evidence, the evidence on record must be inconsistent with innocence of the accused and that only irresistible conclusion from the circumstantial evidence available on file must be one of involvement of the accused, without scope for any other hypothesis. The judgment, according to the appellant, is perverse based on misreading of the evidence. The trial Court is said to have wrongly assumed that the towel used to strangulate the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant, least realizing that it was nobody- s case that the towel was recovered on a disclosure statement made by the appellant, as prosecution admitted that towel was wrapped around the neck of the deceased at the time of recovery of the dead body. The prosecution is said to have failed to convincingly prove that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. The Trial Court is also said to have failed to appreciate that the appellant though arrested on the very date, the deceased went missing and his dead body was later recovered, was not got medically examined by the doctor so as to find out any injury or bruises on his private part that not made any effort to find out whether the semen found on anal region of the deceased was ejaculated by the appellant. The trial Court is also said to have avoided to refer to Supreme Court judgment reported as 2011 (7) SCC 130 : AIR 2011 SC 2877 ), claimed to have been relied upon by the appellant to convince the Trial Court that there were major gaps in the prosecution case. 11. The trial Court is also said to have avoided to refer to Supreme Court judgment reported as 2011 (7) SCC 130 : AIR 2011 SC 2877 ), claimed to have been relied upon by the appellant to convince the Trial Court that there were major gaps in the prosecution case. 11. The convict Sohan Lal has not filed appeal against judgment and sentence. Learned Trial Judge has in compliance of mandate of Section 374, Cr. P.C. submitted the record/proceedings for confirmation of sentence, registered as Criminal Reference Confirmation No. 15/2012. 12. We have gone through the appeal, the impugned judgment and order and the trial Court record. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Additional Advocate General at length. 13. The impugned judgment, on bare look, reveals that learned Trial Court while going through the prosecution case and evidence brought on record noticed that there was no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged occurrence and that the prosecution to bring home guilt to the appellant, exclusively relied upon circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court appears to have been alive to the quality of cricumstantial evidence required to record conviction against the appellant and that the circumstantial evidence to enable the prosecution to substantiate the charge must be incompatible with innocence of an accused and guilt of any other person. The learned Trial Judge while appreciating the prosecution evidence has extensively referred to reported case law and ' treatise' on the subject. 14. The Trial Court tracing the principles on the subject, has referred to law laid down in ' Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 342)- and scanned the case law thereafter, till date. There is no need to load this judgment with the excerpts from the reported cases referred to by the Trial Court. We, nonetheless, feel tempted to reproduce the following paras from Supreme Court judgments AIR 1982 SC 1157 and 2000 (4) Crimes 235 (SC). 15. Supreme Court commenting upon the principles that must guide Trial Court while appreciating circumstantial evidence in a case where prosecution story exclusively rests on circumstantial evidence observed : ' The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. 15. Supreme Court commenting upon the principles that must guide Trial Court while appreciating circumstantial evidence in a case where prosecution story exclusively rests on circumstantial evidence observed : ' The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy there tests (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypotheses than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence' . 16. The Principals were reiterated in 2014 (4) Crimes 235 (SC) in following words: ' Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-conviction on basis of principles. It is often said that witnesses may lie but the circumstances cannot. To convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly established. The proved circumstances must be such as would reasonably exclude the possibility or innocence of the accused. The circumstancial evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The chain of circumstances, furnished by the prosecution should be so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Circumstantial evidence in such a case may be an important circumstance giving assurance to the existence of the other circumstances alleged against the culprit. This Court has consistently held that when the evidence against the accused, particularly when he is charged with grave offence like murder consists of only circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilt, not fantastic possibilities nor inference but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of and circumstance.' 17. The prosecution, at the time it laid charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused and thereafter, when it concluded its evidence and the appellant made a statement explaining incriminatory material come across in the prosecution evidence against him, relied upon the following circumstances to prove its case against the appellant and other two accused. (i) That the deceased was last seen with the appellant at midday on 12th March, 2003, whereafter the deceased went missing and his dead body was recovered at 9.00 p.m. on the same date. (ii) That the appellant immediately after the deceased was sodomized and strangulated to death, approached his relation accused Mohd. Saleem Khan with a request to help him dispose of the dead body and hatched a criminal conspiracy with other two accused to dispose dead body and destroy the evidence of the crime and other two accused in execution of the criminal conspiracy persuaded Pritam Singh alias Bittu to provide them his vehicle 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407) on hire against consideration of Rs. 500/- on the pretext that the vehicle was to carry a Bharat from Channi; that the vehicle was taken to the house of appellant the accused -Mohd. Saleem Khan got down from vehicle and called appellant that the accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan went into a house and brought a filled gunny bag and loaded it in the vehicle; that the accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan reversed the vehicle and rashly drove away the vehicle in the direction, the vehicle was driven to the house of the appellant. (iii) That the family members of the deceased and those assembled in the law (courtyard) of the house of the deceased, anxious to know the whereabouts of the deceased, alarmed by parking of the vehicle (Minibus 407) outside the gate of appellant- s residential house got suspicious and came out to see what was happening and saw the vehicle (Minibus 407) being hurriedly reversed; that the accused Mohd. Saleem Khan who was driving the vehicle, did not respond to the signs/ gestures of the family members of the deceased requesting him to stop but rashly drove away the vehicle. Saleem Khan who was driving the vehicle, did not respond to the signs/ gestures of the family members of the deceased requesting him to stop but rashly drove away the vehicle. (iv) That the family members of the deceased reported suspicious parking of the vehicle(Minibus 407) outside the gate of appellant- s residence and its hurried departure from spot and failure of his driver to stop the vehicle when asked to do so and given a chase, to the police post, Bathindi, Jammu. (v) That the receipt of report regarding suspicious parking of the vehicle and its departure, alerted the police, prompting it to lay ' Nakka- and follow the vehicle when it was spotted. (vi) That the vehicle was intercepted at railway crossing, near Sector -7 Trikuta Nagar/ Channi Himmat, on its search, dead body of the deceased was found kept in a gunny bag in the box of last seat. (vii) That the dead body on recovery was found to have a towel wrapped around his neck and the medical examination/postmortem examination confirmed that the death had occurred due to strangulation. (viii) That on medical examination of the dead body anus was found dilated and moist and a fissure (fresh) in 6- O clock position on the anus. (ix) That the fact that the deceased was sodomized sufficiently indicated that the motive behind the crime was to conceal the criminal assault made on the deceased and silence him for all times to come. 18. The prosecution to prove that the deceased was last seen with the appellant relied upon statement of PWs Bakhtair Khanday-cousin of the deceased, Dilshada-aunt of the deceased, Ajaz Ahmed an acquaintance of the deceased and his family and residing as tenant in the house of the appellant. The Trial Court on going through the testimony of three witnesses, duly tested at the anvil of cross-examination, held the prosecution to have proved the important component of circumstantial evidence against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant insists that an objective and dispassionate appraisal of the statements made by the aforementioned witnesses does not lead to the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. It is pointed out that their statements suffer from serious contradictions and that the three witnesses contradict each other, making their statements uncreditworthy. The arguments advanced, makes it necessary for us to revisit their statements. 19. It is pointed out that their statements suffer from serious contradictions and that the three witnesses contradict each other, making their statements uncreditworthy. The arguments advanced, makes it necessary for us to revisit their statements. 19. The deceased Owais Rashid alias Shakir was resident of village Nadihal, Bandipora. His uncle Bashir Ahmad Khanday lived with his family at Palli Hill Colony, Nawabad, Sunjwan, Jammu. Owais Rashid attached to his uncle, aunt and cousin had come to live with them for while at Jammu. The appellant is next door neighbour of PW-Bashir Ahmed Khanday. PW-Ajaz Ahmed having some experience as electrician and one Imran a mechanic, also a resident of Bandipura, lived as tenants in the house of the appellant. All are said to have cordial relation. PW-Bakhtiar Ahmed stated that the deceased after having his lunch, at around 1.30 p.m. went to the house of the appellant to play cricket; that the scooter of the appellant was parked outside his gate; that the deceased started playing cricket with PW-Ajaz; that PW-Dilshada-mother of PW-Bakhtair, from the roof of the house called deceased and asked him to return to his house; that the deceased did not return to his house as he was keen to play for some more time; that PW-Dilshada again went to the roof of the house called deceased and asked him to come home and also asked PW-Ajaz to come to her house and repair Electric Heater and Press (Electric Iron); that PW-Ajaz responded and proceeded to house of PW-Dilshada, asking the deceased to return to home; that the deceased, however, did not return; that PW-Dilshada a third time went to the roof to call the deceased and did not find him there; that PW-Dilshada saw the appellant calling the deceased to his house; that after brief interval PWs-Dilshada, Ajaz and Bakhtair went to the appellant- s house to look for the deceased; appellant- s colour changed when the witnesses started making enquiries about the deceased; that search in the neighbourhood and a local ' Nallah- yielded no result constraining PWs-Bashir Ahmed, Bakhtair and Ajaz Ahmed lodged a missing report at Police Post, Bathindi. PW-Ajaz Ahmed has stated that on the fateful day, the deceased at around 12.30 p.m. came to his residence, had lunch with him and they played cricket for a while; that his aunt came out from gate of her house and called the deceased but the deceased did not go but sat on the scooter of the appellant; that his aunt again came out to call deceased and the deceased replied that he would come a little later, whereafter his aunt asked the witness to come in and repair Press (Electric Iron) and Heater; that it took him about an hour to repair press (Electric Iron) and heater and he thereafter was asked by PW-Dilshada to fetch eggs and bread from a shop; that on his return from the market, PW-Dilshada again enquired about the deceased and he expresses his ignorance; that he went to his room and found the appellant present in his house; that he enquired from the appellant and the appellant replied that he did not see the deceased; that he went to the house of PW-Dilshada informed her, and grand mother of the deceased that the deceased was not in witness- s room; that thereafter all went to look for the deceased and finally lodged missing report with the police. PW-Dilshada has deposed that at about 1.00 p. m. on 12th March, 2003, she went to the roof of her house and found the deceased playing with the appellant; that she asked the deceased to return to his house but the appellant replied that the deceased was playing with him and the deceased also said that he was busy in playing; that she thrice asked the deceased to return to his house but the appellant did not allow him to return; that she asked PW-Ajaz to come to her house to repair ' Press (electric iron) and Heater- , that she again asked the appellant about the deceased and he expresses ignorance; that she proceeded to go into the house of the appellant to look for the deceased, but the appellant did not let her in and when she returned towards her house the appellant followed her and left on his scooter. The witnesses have stuck to their stand in their cross-examination. The witnesses have stuck to their stand in their cross-examination. They have admitted that the appellant joined them in the afternoon of 12th March, 2003 to search for the deceased, though he disappeared during the day for an hour or two. They have also admitted that the deceased had developed affection for the appellant and that there were no complaints against the conduct and character of the appellant. PW-Dilshada has in her cross-examination clarified that she has not seen the deceased accompanying the appellant into his house, though she had seen the deceased playing with the appellant. 20. A closer look at the testimony of these three important prosecution witnesses would reveal that their statements do not suffer from any serious contradictions as would render the statements unreliable nor do witnesses contradict each other. There is complete uniformity in their statements regarding departure of the deceased from his house to the house of the appellant to play cricket. PWs-Bakhtair Ahmed and Dilshada have seen him playing cricket - the later with the appellant and PW-Ajaz Ahmed even joined him and was with the deceased till he went to the house of PW-Dilshada to repair Press (Electric Iron) and Heater. When PW-Dilshada after repeatedly asking the deceased to return to the house went into her house and PW-Ajaz went into the house of PW-Dilshada to make the repairs, the deceased was just outside the house of the appellant sitting on his scooter. The deceased disappeared during the period PW-Ajaz repaired the iron and got eggs and bread from the market. With the departure of PW-Ajaz, the deceased was left with the appellant as also stated by PW-Dilshada. The deceased, therefore, was before he disappeared last seen with the appellant. In view of evidence on record, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove further that the deceased was actually taken by the appellant into his house. This is evident from the surrounding circumstances including seizure of cap of deceased from the residential house of the appellant vide seizure memo EX. PW NB/2. The seizure memo put to the appellant while recording his statement u/S. 342, Cr. P.C. The appellant while deny other seizures made in his presence has not denied seizure of the cap. The prosecution, therefore, successfully proved before the Trial Court that the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the Trial Court rightly held so. 21. PW NB/2. The seizure memo put to the appellant while recording his statement u/S. 342, Cr. P.C. The appellant while deny other seizures made in his presence has not denied seizure of the cap. The prosecution, therefore, successfully proved before the Trial Court that the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the Trial Court rightly held so. 21. Though the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the appellant in the afternoon of 12th March, 2003 went to see other two accused to hatch conspiracy to dispose of the dead body, yet the other circumstances proved point to such a meeting and hatching of the conspiracy. PW Dilshada has deposed that soon after the disappearance of deceased caused an alarm in the neighborhood and she unsuccessfully made an attempt to enter the house of the appellant, the appellant followed her and left on his scooter for some unknown destination. PW Bakhtiyar Khandey, while admitting that the appellant joined the family of the deceased to make a search for the deceased, stated that the appellant disappeared for an hour or two in the afternoon. PW Pritam Singh has deposed that he was approached by PW Mohd. Saleem Khan and Sohan Lal at Bari Brahmana and at their instance he took his vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407) to the residence of the appellant where the accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan after calling the appellant, entered into a house and carried from the house a filled gunny bag and loaded in his vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407). The presence of vehicle in the evening of 12th March, 2003 outside the house of the appellant is proved by PWs Bakhtiyar Khandey, Aijaz Mir, Bashir Khandey and Zaffer Iqbal. PW-Aijaz Mir who claims to have chased the vehicle rushing away from the residence of the appellant, has deposed that the accused Mohd. Saleem Khan was one of the person present in the vehicle. Cross-examination has not created any dent in their destiny. The evidence put together leads to the conclusion that the vehicle was brought pursuant to conspiracy hatched by the appellant with other two accused to take away the dead body of deceased-Owais Rashid Khandey alias Shakir from the appellant- s residential house to dispose it of and thereby destroy the evidence. 22. The evidence put together leads to the conclusion that the vehicle was brought pursuant to conspiracy hatched by the appellant with other two accused to take away the dead body of deceased-Owais Rashid Khandey alias Shakir from the appellant- s residential house to dispose it of and thereby destroy the evidence. 22. The PWs Bakhtiyar Khandey, Aijaz Mir, Bashir Khandey and Zaffer Iqbal have deposed that the vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407) was in the evening of 12th March, 2003 hurriedly brought to the residence of the appellant and all those sitting in the lawn of the house of PW Bashir Khandey become suspicious about the vehicle and came out to find out the reason, the vehicle was parked outside appellant- s house; that no sooner did they come out that the vehicle was reversed and rashly driven in the direction it had come from; that they chased the vehicle for quite some distance asking the driver to stop the vehicle, that as the vehicle rushed away they returned to the house of PW Bashir Khandey and thereafter went to police post Bathindi to report arrival and departure of the vehicle, to and from the appellant- s house. PW Pritam Singh has extended support to the version of other prosecution witnesses and deposed that as the accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan jumped to the driver- s seat after loading the dead body in the vehicle and rashly drove away the vehicle, a large crowd whistled and hooted at them, but the accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan did not stop the vehicle. The testimony of PWs Bakhtiyar Khandey and others is also reinforced by PW Zaffer Iqbal, Division Officer, Police Division, Bathindi by deposing that in the evening of 12th March, 2003 a report was received by the Incharge Head Constable, Police Post Bathindi regarding the movement of vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407) in the area and that on his return to Police Division he flashed the message about the movements of the said vehicle to all police posts/nakkas. 23. 23. PW Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, Sub-Inspector stated that on 12-3-2003 at 9.15 p.m. he accompanied by other constables from Police Station Channi, while on routine patrol spotted vehicle (Mini bus 407) 1973-JK02P coming from the opposite side towards railway crossing Chenni; that the driver on seeing the police vehicle turned his vehicle towards an un-inhabited area; that he got suspicious and gave the vehicle a chase; that the driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle in a vacant plot and five persons jumped out of the vehicle and started running towards the railway track; that he and other constables run after them and were able to catch hold of three of them namely PW-Pritam Singh- driver of the vehicle, Naresh its conductor and one Anil Luthra; that the two persons who succeeded in giving the police party a slip, were identified as accused Saleem and Sohan Lal alias Sonu; that on search of the vehicle its last seat was found to have been removed and put on last but one seat, while a gunny bag was found to have been put in the box of the last seat; that feet and lower legs of a young boy were protruding out of the gunny bag indicating that a dead body was put in the gunny bag; that on enquiry the boys - PW Pritam Singh, Naresh and Anil Luthra disclosed that accused Saleem and Sohan Lal alias Sonu were drivers by profession and driving their vehicles on Bishnah route; that they approached Pritam Singh for his vehicle saying that a Bharat was to be carried from Bhathindi and fixed Rs. 500/- as hire; that the vehicle was taken to the residence of the appellant where Saleem (accused) and the appellant loaded the gunny bag in the vehicle. PW Tilak Raj, S. I., has claimed to have entered report No. 22 in the daily register of Police Station Channi and sent its copy EX. PW-TR to Police Station Bahu Fort through constable Pardeep Kumar 760/J and got the dead body identified by the relations of the deceased, prepared fard-i-shanakth nash (identification memo of dead body) fard-i-makbozgi nash (seizure memo of dead body),fard-i-zabti gadi (seizure memo of vehicle) - EX.PW-BB, EX.PW-US/1 and EX.PW-US. PW-Uttam Singh, Head Constable 72/J, PW Mohammad Latief, Head Constable 1987/J, PW Pawan Kumar, constable 2818, have corroborated statement of PW Tilak Raj in minor details. PW-Uttam Singh, Head Constable 72/J, PW Mohammad Latief, Head Constable 1987/J, PW Pawan Kumar, constable 2818, have corroborated statement of PW Tilak Raj in minor details. The evidence on record proved that the dead body of deceased put in a gunny bag with its feet and lower part of legs protruding out of the bag was recovered from vehicle (Mini bus 407) 1973-JK02P at railway crossing Channi at around 9.15 p.m. on 12-3-2003. 24. PW Dr. Bashir Ahmad Tragwal Assistant Surgeon Forensic Medicine Department Govt. Medical College, Jammu, has claimed to have conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of Owais Rashid, aged 10 years indentified by PWs Mohammad Shafi and Bakhtiyar Khanday and to have found ligature material - towel, tied tightly around the neck in its middle with double knots on the left lateral side-2 inches below the left angle of mandible. The witness has claimed to have seen ligature mark all around the neck with the impression of knot on the left lateral aspect and sub cutanean tissues bruised under the ligature. PW Dr. Bashir Ahmad Tragwal has stated to have cut the ligature material and handed it over to the Investigating Officer as recorded in seizure memo EX.PW-BB/1. The witness has stated to have prepeared the post-mortem report Ext. P-BT. and opined that the death was caused because of asphyxia due to strangulation by the ligature, found tied arount the neck. The testimony of PW - Dr. Bashir Ahmad Tragwal has gone unimpeached in the cross-examination. The medical evidence, therefore, convincingly proved that the deceased was strangulated to death. 25. The post-mortem examination report EX.P-BT reveals that anus was found dilated and moist, with a fresh fissure at 6, O- clock position indicating that the deceased was a victim of unnatural offence/carnal intercourse and there was penetration, resulting in dilation of anus and fissure (fresh) in anus. The pant-trousers worn by the appellant at the time of his arrest, seized soon after his arrest vide the seizure memo EX.PW-ML dated 13th March, 2003 was, as stated by PW-Davinder Singh, Investigation Officer, forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and found by the forensic expert to semen/human spermatozoa as certified in EX.PW-MR. The pant was on naked examination found to be stained with semen like stain and when examined under ultra violet light (UV) showed fluorescence, characteristics of seminal stain. The pant was on naked examination found to be stained with semen like stain and when examined under ultra violet light (UV) showed fluorescence, characteristics of seminal stain. It is important to note that the appellant was arrested a few hours after the occurrence and the semen/ human spermatozoa on the pant worn by him at the time of his arrest, seen with other attending circumstances convicingly proved that the accused indulged in sexual intercourse some time before his arrest that lead to ejaculation and its stains were left on pant (trousers) worn by the appellant. The fact that semen/spermatozoa were not detected on the piece of cloth recovered from the residence of the appellant at his instance after he made the disclosure statement EX.PW-MB claimed by him to have been used to clean his genitals and the anul region of the deceased, does not change the complexion of the matter or make any dent in the prosecution evidence, that otherwise overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that the appellant committed carnal intercourse with the deceased. 26. The prosecution evidence brought on record sufficiently proved the motive behind the dastardly act committed by the appellant. The motive, as laid down by Supreme Court in Rashpal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (1) Crimes 162 (SC) : ( AIR 2013 SC 3641 ), ' does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence' . The appellant lured the deceased to his residence, taking advantage of the affection that the deceased, an innocent boy of 10 years, had developed for the appellant, subjected him to carnal intercourse and thereafter apprehending that the deceased may report the matter to his uncle, aunt and other relations, with whom the appellant had cordial relations, strangulated the deceased to death, planning to throw away his dead body at a distant place and escape the responsibility for the death. Propelled by this motive the appellant strangulated the deceased to death, rushed to his relation Mohammad Saleem Khan, hatched the conspiracy to shift the dead body from his residence with the intention to destory it and destroy the evidence, likely to come against him. 27. The argument advanced by ld. Propelled by this motive the appellant strangulated the deceased to death, rushed to his relation Mohammad Saleem Khan, hatched the conspiracy to shift the dead body from his residence with the intention to destory it and destroy the evidence, likely to come against him. 27. The argument advanced by ld. counsel for the appellant that the prosecution evidence ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court because of serious discrepancies and contradictions and also for the reason that the key prosecution witnesses were related to the deceased, is without any merit. In the first place the prosecution evidence does not suffer from any serious contradictions that go to the root of the matter or destabilizes the fundamental elements of the prosecution case. The contradictions, if any, are superficial in nature and leave the core of prosecution evidence untouched. There is total agreement between prosecution witnesses as regards fundamental aspects of the prosecution case. The prosecution witnesses and in particular members of the family of the deceased have fairly conceded that the appellant to their knowledge did not at any point of time indulge in any illegal activity or had shown unruly, abnormal or unbecoming behaviour. They have admitted that they had cordial relations with the appellant and would at times eat at each others place and that the deceased particularly had developed affection for the appellant. PWs Bakhtiyar Khandey, Aijaz Mir, Dilshada and Bashir Ahmad Mir as evident from their testimony, have given a truthful and honest account of the events of 12th March 2003, in an unbiased and impartial manner and not withheld any information even if it went to benefit of the appellant. We do not come across any exaggeration in their statements or an effort to somehow implicate the appellant. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, that the witnesses have acted in a partisan and partial manner and agree with the opinion of learned Trial Judge that relationship per se does not point to partiality and a witness cannot be labelled as an ' interested witness' only because he is related to the deceased or the complainant. 28. Counsel for the appellant, that the witnesses have acted in a partisan and partial manner and agree with the opinion of learned Trial Judge that relationship per se does not point to partiality and a witness cannot be labelled as an ' interested witness' only because he is related to the deceased or the complainant. 28. The argument that failure of the Investigation Officer to get the appellant examined by a doctor immediately after his arrest to find out whether there were any injury marks or bruises on the genitals of the appellant and absence of such marks on his medical examination on 13-3-2003, was fatal for the prosecution case, is without any merit. While medical examination of an accused alleged to have committed carnal intercourse and presence of injuries and bruises on the male organ would be helpful in concluding that the offence alleged was committed by the accused, failure on part of the Investigation Officer to get the accused examined by the doctor immediately after his arrest or absence of injury marks on male organ, would not be lethal to the prosecution case where other evidence available on the file connects the accused with the alleged offence. 29. The argument that as the appellant did not have exclusive control over the residential house from which the dead body of the deceased was taken and loaded in the vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407), the dead body cannot be held to have been recovered from his possession, again does not sound convincing in view of the evidence available on the file. True that the appellant- s mother, his brother and PW Ajaz and Imran also lived in the house, the last two as tenants, yet the evidence on the file reveals that it is the appellant who approached accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan for disposal of the dead body, hatched a conspiracy with them and thereafter took out the dead body from the store over the bathroom and with the help of accused-Mohd. Saleem Khan carried to the vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407). The evidence also points to presence of the appellant in the house at the time the occurrence took place. Saleem Khan carried to the vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407). The evidence also points to presence of the appellant in the house at the time the occurrence took place. It needs to be pointed out that on post-mortem examination, the stomach of the deceased was found to have half digested food, making it clear that the occurrence has taken place an hour or so after the deceased went out after taking lunch, to play. The evidence on record indicates that none except appellant was in the house at the time of occurrence. PW-Ajaz was out playing for a while with the deceased and thereafter busy in repairing press (electric iron) and heater and getting eggs and bread for PW Dilshada. Imran, a mechanic by profession was out of his job. The appellant in his statement under Section 342, Cr. P.C. has stated that there was nobody in the house on 12th March, 2003. The appellant avoided PW Dilshada when she made an effort to look for the deceased in the appellant- s house. The evidence, therefore, blunts the argument that as others in addition to appellant were present in the house, the possession of the dead body cannot be attributed to the appellant. The argument that as the dead body was recovered from the store over the bathroom and not the appellant- s room, the appellant is not to be held responsible for the presence of the dead body in other part of the house. It is quite natural that the appellant after committing the offence, would not have placed the dead body on display in his bedroom and made an effort to conceal the dead body till he was able to dispose of with the help of other accused. The appellant found the store above the bathroom the right place to keep the dead body till it was shifted or taken out from the house as the store above the bathroom would neither be easily accessible nor looked into by any of the inmates of the house. The appellant found the store above the bathroom the right place to keep the dead body till it was shifted or taken out from the house as the store above the bathroom would neither be easily accessible nor looked into by any of the inmates of the house. This apart, the store over the bathroom as the site plan would reveal is nearest to the main gate wherefrom the dead body was loaded in the vehicle No. 1973-JK02P (Mini bus 407) and must have been chosen by the appellant for depositing the dead body so that it is easier for him to remove the dead body for its disposal, as planned by the appellant and other accused. 30. While summing up the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to demolish the prosecution case and assail the trial Court judgment and order, it would be also necessary to refer to the case law relied upon by the counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant to buttress his arguments proposes to draw support from law laid down in Musheer khan alias Badshah Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (2) Acquittal 459 (SC) : ( AIR 2010 SC 762 ), State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite, AIR 2009 SC 1066 , Bheemal and Ors. v. State of U. P. 2007 (2) Acquittal 274 : (2007 (4) ALJ (NOC) 675 (All)) and Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand 2013 (1) Crimes 162 (SC) : ( AIR 2013 SC 3641 ), In Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan- s case (supra), the Court observed that if conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. In State of Goa- s case (supra), it was held that in case of circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances must be complete and that onus to prove it is on the prosecution and that infirmity or lacuna in prosecution evidence cannot be cured by false defence or plea. In Rishipal- s case (supra), it was held that motive, assumes importance in a case that rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. In Rishipal- s case (supra), it was held that motive, assumes importance in a case that rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. In Bheemal- s case (supra), the Court commenting on importance of ' last seen theory' observed that the last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility or other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.' The case law relied upon does not in any manner extend support to the grounds urged in the appeal. The principles that must guide the trial Court while appreciating circumstantial evidence have been extensively quoted in the trial Court judgment and the evidence appreciated on the touchstone of such principles. Where the ' last seen theory' is pressed into by the prosecution, as a component of circumstantial evidence to substantiate charge of murder, the prosecution is to prove that death had occurred immediately or within a reasonable time after the deceased was ' last seen ' with the accused. The time of recovery of the dead body would not be of any importance. Why should trial Court insist on reasonable or least interval between, the time the accused was ' last seen' with the deceased and the death, is to exclude chance of the deceased having been with some one else or parted company with the accused before the offence was committed. Lesser time gap between ' last seen' and the ' death' more importance is to be given to the ' last seen theory' . On the other hand, longer time gap between ' last seen' and the time of death, lesser importance and evidentiary value would be attracted by the last seen theory. Lesser time gap between ' last seen' and the ' death' more importance is to be given to the ' last seen theory' . On the other hand, longer time gap between ' last seen' and the time of death, lesser importance and evidentiary value would be attracted by the last seen theory. In the present case, the deceased was last seen with the accused at noon of 12th March, 2003 and he met his end when the food taken by him at noon, was half digested. In others words, the deceased was strangulated to death if not immediately, a little after he was last seen with the accused. The ' last seen theory' , therefore, is rightly pressed into service by the prosecution. 31. The links in the chain of events unfolded by the prosecution evidence, when considered together objectively, lead to the irresistible conclusion theat the appellant on 12-3-2003 at around noon, lured the deceased to his residence, committed carnal intercourse on him, and using a towel strangulated him to death and thereafter hatched a criminal conspiracy with other two accused to dispose of dead body with the intention to destroy evidence; that the appellant and his co-conspirators made an attempt to dispose of the dead body though he did not succeed in his design because of interception of the vehicle in which dead body was being taken, at railway crossing Channi and its recovery by SHO Police Station Channi. The evidence brought on the file does not lead to any other hypothesis, other than the guilt of the appellant and other two accused and is not compatible with innocence of the appellant or guilt of any other person. The trial court, therefore, had cogent and convincing evidence before it to hold the appellant - Mohammad Yousuf Shah guilty of offence punishable under sections 302, 377, 201/511, RPC, and Sohan Lal alias Sonu guilty of offence punishable under sections 201/511, RPC. The trial court judgment cannot be faulted on any ground, urged in the appeal. 32. We, for the reasons discussed, do not find any merit in the appeal as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302, 377, 201/511, RPC. This however does not end the matter. The trial court judgment cannot be faulted on any ground, urged in the appeal. 32. We, for the reasons discussed, do not find any merit in the appeal as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 302, 377, 201/511, RPC. This however does not end the matter. The appellant by a separate order dated 30-4-2012, after he was held guilty vide judgment dated 29-3-2012 has been sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302, RPC, rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 377, RPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable u/S. 201, RPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable u/S. 511, RPC. Though the appellant has not specifically questioned the quantum of punishment awarded yet as the trial Court judgment 29-3-2012 and the order dated 30-4-2012 awarding death sentence and other punishments have been questioned in the appeal, we take it as a challenge to the sentence awarded, as well. 33. The sentence to be awarded to an accused found guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is ordinarily to be imprisonment for life. Imprisonment for life is the rule and ' death sentence' only an exception. The trial Court is required to record reasons, where it is of the opinion that the punishment awarded must be death sentence and not life imprisonment. The object is to exclude chances of arbitrary exercise of discretion with which Court is vested under Section 302, RPC while awarding sentence in a case involving of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. The Appellate Court would be in a better position to examine as to what weighed with the trial Court, while making departure from the normal and ordinary course of awarding imprisonment for life in such case, to award death sentence. It is settled law that death sentence is to be awarded only in rarest of rare cases. What would constitute rarest of rare case would depend upon the mode and method of commission of the offence, the fall out of the crime on the society at large victim of the offence, the extent of loss of life resulting from the offence proved against the accused and like factors. What would constitute rarest of rare case would depend upon the mode and method of commission of the offence, the fall out of the crime on the society at large victim of the offence, the extent of loss of life resulting from the offence proved against the accused and like factors. Where the offence is committed with extreme brutality, the victim of the offence is the child or children, women a person suffering from mental or physical disability, the fall out of crime is on lives of a number of people or the crime has a negative spill over for the society at large and the offence sends shock waves to the social fabric, awarding death sentence to the perpetrator of the crime may be considered by the trial Court. The trial Court while taking a decision as regards sentence to be awarded in such a case, is to be alive to the aggravating circumstances that go against the person convicted of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, as also the mitigating circumstances that go in his favour. Where the Court finds mitigating and extenuating circumstances in favour of the convict, it has to take note of such circumstances and opt for imprisonment of life in place of death. The trial Court, has to equally focus on crime as well as circumstances of the criminal. The trial Court is not to be exclusively influenced by the crime, manner of commission of the crime, its fall out on the society at large, loss of life, occasioned by the commission of crime, ignoring the circumstances of the criminal like the background to which he belongs, his age and the chances of his reform to be reclaimed by the society. It would be advantageous to reproduce following observation of the Apex Court in Gurvail Singh alias Gala v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1177 . ' To award death sentence, the aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied and there should be no mitigating circumstances (criminal test) favouring the accused. It would be advantageous to reproduce following observation of the Apex Court in Gurvail Singh alias Gala v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1177 . ' To award death sentence, the aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied and there should be no mitigating circumstances (criminal test) favouring the accused. Even if both the tests are satisfied as against the accused, even then the Court has to finally apply the Rarest of Rare Cases test (R-R Test), which depends on the perception of the society and not ' Judge-centric' , that is whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crime or not. While applying this test, the Court has to look into variety of factors like society- s abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes like rape and murder of minor girls, especially intellectually challenged minor girls, minor girls with physical disability, old and infirm women with disabilities etc. Courts, award death sentence, because situation demands, due to constitutional compulsion, reflected by the will of the people, and not Judge centric.' It follows that the Court has to first examine the aggravating circumstances that go against the accused and thereafter find out if there are mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused. In case, there are mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused ' death sentence' is not an option. Where there are no mitigating circumstances or the aggravating circumstances over weigh the mitigating circumstances, the Court has to apply ' Rarest of Rare Case test' . Where the case before the Court does not satisfy ' Rarest of Rare cases test' death sentence again is not an option. The death sentence is to be awarded only where the case can be classified as ' Rarest of Rare cases' . Again the trial Court may have to give a more serious consideration to the question of awarding either of the two sentences i.e. imprisonment for life or death sentence, where the prosecution case exclusively rests on circumstantial evidence as against the direct evidence. It is true that direct evidence satisfying the standard of proof required in a criminal trial leads to same conclusion or result, i.e. conviction of the accused, as the indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence tested on the anvil of settled legal principles. It is true that direct evidence satisfying the standard of proof required in a criminal trial leads to same conclusion or result, i.e. conviction of the accused, as the indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence tested on the anvil of settled legal principles. However, in case indirect evidence there are witnesses who have actually seen the accused committing the crime, whereas in case of circumstantial evidence, none claims to have seen the accused committing the crime and his involvement in commission of crime is deduced from a set of facts that lead to such conclusion. Where the prosecution case exclusively depends on indirect or circumstantial evidence it would be always appropriate to award lesser of the two sentences that may be permissible to be awarded under law. In other words, where prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, there is to be extra tilt in favour of ' imprisonment for life' as against death sentence- . 34. So viewed where the prosecution has no direct evidence to link the accused with the offence alleged against him and places exclusive reliance on circumstantial evidence and the offence carries punishment of death or imprisonment for life, the trial Court should lean in favour of awarding life imprisonment unless circumstances exist more serious than the Court would look for in a direct evidence case, to that call for award of death sentence. 35. In the present case, the deceased was an innocent boy of 10 years. He had developed affection for the appellant and had confidence in appellant, as one would have in his elder brother. The appellant frustrated that confidence and abused the affection shown to him by the deceased. He did not only make the deceased a victim of his lust by committing an unnatural offence on him but thereafter strangulated the deceased to death in a merciless and brutal manner. However, nature of the offence found to have been committed by the appellant held the brutal and merciless manner in which it was committed must not make lose sight of the circumstances of the appellant. The appellant is a 25 years of age at the time of occurrence. He has no past criminal record. The close relation of deceased who have crossed the witness box have admitted that there was no complaints of any misbehaviour, illegal activity, perversion against the appellant. The appellant is a 25 years of age at the time of occurrence. He has no past criminal record. The close relation of deceased who have crossed the witness box have admitted that there was no complaints of any misbehaviour, illegal activity, perversion against the appellant. There is a real chance that the appellant may reform and society may be able to reclaim him as responsible and law abiding citizen. In the circumstances discussed, the case does not satisfy the requirements of ' rarest of rare cases' and there are mitigating circumstances that must dissuade from awarding death sentence and instead award of sentence for imprisonment of life. 36. There are some other aspects of the sentence awarded by the trial Court, that call for a second look. The trial Court has awarded imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable section 377, RPC. It has escaped attention of the trial Court that the offence punishable under Section 377, RPC carries a sentence of imprisonment of life or sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and lesser of the two sentences was to be awarded, in absence of any reason for award of sentence of life imprisonment, to be recorded by the Court. No reasons are recorded to award sentence of imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 377, RPC. The trial Court has sentenced the appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201, RPC and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 511, RPC. The sentence was awarded unmindful of the fact that the appellant was alleged to have made an attempt to destroy evidence. The offence under Section 201, RPC was not complete and only an effort to commit the offence was made by the appellant. The appellant, therefore, was to be sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 201/511, RPC and not for the offence under section 201, RPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 511, RPC. 37. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain and uphold conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 377, 201/511, RPC recorded by the Principal Session Judge, Jammu 3-4-2012. 37. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain and uphold conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 377, 201/511, RPC recorded by the Principal Session Judge, Jammu 3-4-2012. However, we modify the sentence awarded by the trial Court as under :- The appellant shall suffer (I) Rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302, RPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant-convict shall suffer imprisonment for a further period of three years. (II) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years for offence punishable under Section 377, RPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant-convict shall suffer imprisonment for a further period of three years and (III) Rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence punishable under Sections 201/511, RPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant-convict shall suffer imprisonment for a further period of three years. 38. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed except modification in sentence awarded to the appellant by trial Court. 39. Confirmation No. 15/2012 is answered accordingly. Appeal dismissed.