Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The appellants-accused Yunus Khan and Hakim Khan, have challenged the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.2 Pali dated 22.06.2005 in Sessions Case No.09/2005 arising out of FIR o.181/2003, P.S. Siriyari (Pali) by which they were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 364/34, 397/34, 302/34, 201 and 120-B IPC and sentenced them as under: S. No. Section Sentence Fine In event of default in depositing fine 1 302/34 IPC L.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Year's RI 2 397/34 IPC 10 years' RI Rs.1,000/- 1 Year's RI 3 364/34 IPC 7 years' RI Rs.1,000/- 1 Year's RI 4 201 IPC 5 years' RI Rs.500/- 6 months' RI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.12.2003, Nandlal PW-16, SHO, PS Siriyari received a telephonic message that at the boarder of Aangdosh, the jeep holders murdered a woman and after throwing her dead body, ran away. After recording this information in Rojnamcha as Ex.P/27, PW-16 Nandlal reached to the place of incident with police force where he saw a dead body of a woman lying in damaged condition. PW-19 Dhanna Ram submitted a report (Ex.P/22) on spot to him (PW-16, Nandlal) with effect that on 25.12.2013, at 11.00 a.m., his wife Dhaku Devi went to her parental house situated at Village Radawas for some domestic work with assurance that she will return in the evening at about 5.00 pm. At about 6.00 p.m., when he was at his well (farm), his daughter Kanya came to him and told that about 1/2 km. Away from the village towards Radawas, jeep holders killed one lady and thrown the body there. When his wife did not return, he went to the spot and found that dead body of his wife was lying there. The blood was oozing from her mouth. Her head was crushed and there were numerous injuries on her right thigh and whole body. From the perusal of the dead body, it was apparent that the jeep holders murdered her by hitting from the jeep. Her odhna was found 200 meters away towards Radawas. While going, she was wearing Timaniya and Kanthi apart from other golden and silver ornaments, out of which Timaniya and Kanthi were missing. 3. From the perusal of the dead body, it was apparent that the jeep holders murdered her by hitting from the jeep. Her odhna was found 200 meters away towards Radawas. While going, she was wearing Timaniya and Kanthi apart from other golden and silver ornaments, out of which Timaniya and Kanthi were missing. 3. The report was disclosing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 201 IPC, therefore, PW-16 Nandlal sent the report Ex.P/22, through Constable Ganpat Singh to P.S. Siriyari for registering the FIR and started the investigation. The FIR No.181/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 201 IPC was registered at P.S. Siriyari (Pali) and after registering the FIR, the same was returned to PW-16 Nandlal, SHO through the same police personnel, i.e. Ganpat Singh. 4. After due investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants Hakim Khan and Yunus Khan for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 201, 364 and 120B IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Marwar Junction (Pali). The learned Magistrate, after complying the provisions envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C., since the matter was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, committed the same as per the provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali who thereafter transferred the matter to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No.1, Pali for hearing. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No.1, Pali, after hearing the parties, found prima facie material against the appellants for framing charges under Sections 364/34, 394/397 read with Section 34, 302/34, 201 and 120-B IPC and framed the charges accordingly against the appellants for which they denied and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was further transferred by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali from Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pali to Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Pali. 6. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses to substantiate the charges against the appellants and exhibited 64 documents. After closing of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they felt ignorance and submitted that the facts emerged in the prosecution evidence against them are wrong and incorrect. The appellant Yunus Khan stated that at the time of accident, he went somewhere else with the passengers in his jeep and police has implicated him falsely. After closing of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they felt ignorance and submitted that the facts emerged in the prosecution evidence against them are wrong and incorrect. The appellant Yunus Khan stated that at the time of accident, he went somewhere else with the passengers in his jeep and police has implicated him falsely. Similarly, appellant accused Hakim Khan has also denied the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution against him and stated that on the day of incident, he was at his shop till 9.00 p.m. and the police has implicated him falsely. Both the appellants failed to adduce any evidence in their defence even after availing opportunity but during prosecution evidence, they exhibited Ex.D/1 police statement of PW-6 Bhikha Ram, police statement of PW-8 Lalu Ram as Ex.D/2 and copy of malkhana register as Ex.D/3. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.2, Pali, after appreciating the evidence and documents on record and considering the rival contentions of the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved, both the appellants have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order of sentence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment and order of sentence, strongly urged that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and felt into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses without ensuring their credibility and reliability. No independent witnesses were associated at the time of alleged recovery of gold ornaments from the appellants. It is highly unbelievable that after more than 4-5 days of the incident, the appellant would retain the gold ornaments in their possession. Only Kanthi and Timaniya were allegedly recovered from the appellants. They have o motive to murder Dakhu Bai. The ornaments were provided by the complainant party to the police to be planted upon the appellants. It was further contended that the daughter of informant, viz., Kanya, who informed regarding the dead body to the complainant PW-19, has not been examined. The prosecution witnesses PW-6 Bhikha Ram and PW-23 Sohanlal are interested witnesses and they should not have been relied upon. It was further contended that the daughter of informant, viz., Kanya, who informed regarding the dead body to the complainant PW-19, has not been examined. The prosecution witnesses PW-6 Bhikha Ram and PW-23 Sohanlal are interested witnesses and they should not have been relied upon. He also submitted that the test identification of ornaments is of no use as the so called ornaments recovered from the possession of the appellants, were marked with the name of the deceased while the other articles, which were mixed at the time of test identification, were not marked. he further submitted that the so called recovered ornaments were deposited in malkhana on 27.12.2003, while as per the Investigating Officer, the recovery was made on 29.12.2003. As such, prior to recovery, the ornaments were there in the malkhana itself. He also submitted that PW-6 Bhikha Ram deposed that he identified the accused as tent owner, still no such fact finds place in the FIR. He further submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law. He also submitted that the whole case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances. PW-6 Bhikha Ram and PW-23 Sohanlal, both have seen the incident but still they did not call for help while both the witnesses are near relatives of the deceased. Lastly, he submitted that the appeal may be accepted and the appellants may be acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order of sentence and submitted that the witnesses saw the appellants in the jeep while giving beating to the deceased and throwing from the jeep. He further argued that at the place of occurrence, tyre marks were found of the same jeep, which was in the possession of the appellants. Number of jeep has also been seen at the time of incident by the prosecution witnesses. he further argued that human blood was also found on the seat covers of the jeep. In pursuance of the information given by the appellants, Timaniya and Kanthi were recovered from their conscious possession. he also argued that the blood was also found on the tyres of the jeep. he further argued that human blood was also found on the seat covers of the jeep. In pursuance of the information given by the appellants, Timaniya and Kanthi were recovered from their conscious possession. he also argued that the blood was also found on the tyres of the jeep. The owner of the jeep admitted that on the date of incident, jeep driver was appellant Yunus Khan and the jeep was in his possession and usually when he did not return in the evening, he used to inform on telephone to him but on that day he did not inform him and without information he remained away. He also argued hat death of deceased in homicidal and several ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased. He further argued that the learned trial Court, while appreciating the prosecution evidence and material available on record rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, which does not call for any interference. 10. We have considered the arguments and have examined the record of the trial Court. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence alone. 11. The postmortem of the dead body of deceased Smt. Dakhu was conducted by the medical board consisting of Dr. Manoj Jain, Dr. Surendra Singh Shekhawat, Dr. Rekha Agarwal and PW-1 Dr. Jassa Ram Choudhary and postmortem report Ex.P/1 was prepared. One of the member of the Board, PW-1 Dr. Jassa Ram Choudhary provide it. He deposed that on 26.12.2003, when he was posted at P.H.C. Ranawas as Medical Officer, on that day, the postmortem of deceased Smt. Dakhu W/o Dhanna Ram, was conducted by the Medical Board and he was the chairman of the board. During postmortem, he found following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound, blood clot - 2X0.5 cm into stun deep – on the right eye-brow. (ii) Multiple abrasions – blood clot – 0.5X0.3 cm to 0.2X01. cm on the left axilla – five in numbers. (iii) Abrasion, blood clot – 1X0.1 cm on the right upper arm (Ant) near right axilla. (iv) Abrasion, blood clot – Crescentic 1.2X0.1 cm – on the right chest laterally near right breast. (v) Abrasion, blood clot – Crescentic – 1.1X0.1 cm – on the right breast near nipple. (vi) Abrasion dark brown, dry, hard, dirt 15X13 cm – on the thoraco abdominal region, left side. (iv) Abrasion, blood clot – Crescentic 1.2X0.1 cm – on the right chest laterally near right breast. (v) Abrasion, blood clot – Crescentic – 1.1X0.1 cm – on the right breast near nipple. (vi) Abrasion dark brown, dry, hard, dirt 15X13 cm – on the thoraco abdominal region, left side. (vii) Abrasion, dark brown, dry, hard, dirt – 20X7 cm – on the left elbow joint, left upper arm and left forearm - laterally. (viii) Abrasion – dark brown, dry, hard, dirt – 18X6 cm – on the right side of the lower abdomen – mediolaterally. (ix) Abrasion - blood clot – 6X3 cm - on the left side of the chest below the left axilla. (x) Abrasion - blood clot – 5X3 cm – on the post-fold of the left axilla. (xi) Abrasion - blood clot – rounded – 2X2 cm - on the left upper arm – middle 1/3rd (ant) (xii) Abrasion - blood clot – 5X3 cm – on the abdomen just below the umbilicus. (xiii) Abrasion - blood clot – 13X7 cm – on the left gluteal region. (xiv) Abrasion - blood clot – 3X2.5 cm – on the right inquinal region. (xv) Lacerated wound (opened) stain lost – 2 fatty tissue exposed on the right thigh – lower 1/2 - ant – 3X2 cm into fatty tissue exposed. (xvi) Abrasion - blood clot – 4X2 cm on the right knee joint (ant) (xvii) Abrasion - blood clot – 2X1.5 cm – on the left knee joint (ant) (xviii) Abrasion - blood clot – 15X2 cm – on the left leg medially (xix) Abrasion - blood clot – 3X1 cm – on the left ankle joint (medially) (xx) Abrasion - blood clot – 2X0.5 cm – on the left ankle joint (ant) (xxi) Multiple abrasion - blood clot – six in numbers – 4X2 cm to 3X1.5 cm - on the left foot. (xxii) Abrasion - blood clot – left ankle joint – on the left thigh laterally – lower half. It was opined that in the opinion of the board, after conducting the postmortem of Smt. Dakhu Bai, the cause of death was found as asphyxia due to throttling. As such, 22 antemortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. Undoubtedly, it was a case of culpable homicide. As such, 22 antemortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. Undoubtedly, it was a case of culpable homicide. As per the postmortem report, Ex.P/1, the death of deceased took place before 24 hours from the time of conducting the postmortem, i.e. 26.12.2003 at 11.30 am to 2.00 pm. 12. PW-6 Bhika Ram clearly stated that at about 5.30-6.00 p.m. while he was going to Radawas from Bera Jhalra on his bicycle for fetching kapasiya for his buffalo, when he reached at nadi (pond), he saw a jeep was coming in fast speed bearing No.120 and after throwing a lady from the jeep it returned and accused persons were there in the jeep. Thereafter, he went to the village and called the villagers and reached at the spot with the villagers where he saw that a dead body was lying and her head was lying down and blood was oozing and her whole garments were full of blood. 13. Similarly, PW-23, Sohanlal also deposed that jeep No.RJ-22-T-0120 was coming from Radawas side bearing black hood in which a lady was crying and a man was beating her in the back portion of the jeep, which went towards Aangdosh and within 10 minutes, it returned. At that time two per-sons were seating on the front seat and the jeep was being driven by Yunus Khan. He identified the accused persons in the court during trial. Though the statement of this witness was disbelieved by the trial court as he admitted in his cross-examination that he understood the statements as to what was to be deposed in the court before making his statement and further that he saw the accused persons at Police Station Sojat but PW-6 Bikha Ram was also cross-examined at length and his statement remained unimpeachable. 14. PW-19 Dhanna Ram, husband of deceased also reached at the spot and identified the body of his wife Dakhu Bai. He came to know regarding the incident from her daughter Kaniya and then went on spot. Though Kaniya has not been examined but that does not affect the veracity of this witness. He has not named the accused persons. 15 . He came to know regarding the incident from her daughter Kaniya and then went on spot. Though Kaniya has not been examined but that does not affect the veracity of this witness. He has not named the accused persons. 15 . PW-18 Chaina Ram, brother of deceased also deposed that on the date of incident, her sister Dakhu reached at his residence and departed at about 4.00 p.m. for her residence and he left her on the road. 16. From the statement of PW-6 Bhikharam and PW-19 Dhanna Ram, it is proved that the jeep holders, after killing a lady, threw her body on roadside at Aangdosh-Radawas Road, which was identified as Dakhu W/o Dhanna Ram PW-19. The accused persons were put to test identification paade at the instance of PW-16 Nandlal, IO and the test identification parade was conducted by PW-22 Yudhisthir Sharma, ACJM, Sojat City who provide the test identification parade memo of accused Yunus Khan as Ex.P/13 and accused Hakim Khan as Ex.P/14 and clearly stated that witnesses Sohanlal and Bhikharam rightly identified the accused persons. The prosecution witnesses Sohanlal PW-23 and Bhikha Ram PW-6 have also corroborated the statement of PW-22 that they identified the accused persons who threw and dead body of deceased from the jeep. Though the learned trial Court disbelieved the statement of PW-23 but the statement of PW-6 Bhikha Ram were found to be credible. 17. PW-19 Dhanna Ram, in his statements, clearly stated that when his wife deceased Dakhu Baileft home for her parental home, she was wearing Timaniya and Kanthi apart from other golden and silver ornaments. PW-18 Chaina Ram also corroborated this statement and stated that when his sister reached to his house, she was wearing Timaniya and Kanthi apart from other ornaments. He further deposed that when he left her sister on road for her matrimonial home, she was wearing Timaniya and Kanthi and when PW-19 Dhanna Ram saw the dead body of the deceased, the Timaniya and Kanthi were missing. 18. PW-16 Nandlal, I.O. stated that he arrested accused appellants vide Ex.P/11 Ex.P/12. He further deposed that when he left her sister on road for her matrimonial home, she was wearing Timaniya and Kanthi and when PW-19 Dhanna Ram saw the dead body of the deceased, the Timaniya and Kanthi were missing. 18. PW-16 Nandlal, I.O. stated that he arrested accused appellants vide Ex.P/11 Ex.P/12. From the perusal of Ex.P/11, it reveals that appellant Hakim Khan was arrested on 27.12.2003 at 2.15 p.m. while accused appellant Yunus Khan was arrested on 27.12.2013 at 2.00 p.m. He further stated that accused appellant Yunus Khan furnished him information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding Kanthi as Ex.P/30 and in pursuance of information, Ex.P/30, he recovered Kanthi from the conscious possession of appellant accused Yunus Khan from a box lying in his house and which was seized vide Ex.P/31 and site plan of recovery memo was prepared as Ex.P/32. The motbir of recovery memo Ex.P/30, PW-23 Rajaram corroborated the statement of PW-16 and stated that on 29.12.2003, accused Yunus Khan, in pursuance of information furnished by him to the Investigating Officer PW-16 Nandlal, got recovered 13 phularias (Kanthi) from an almirah lying in his house. Though there is some contradiction regarding box and almirah as PW-16 stated that the Kanthi was recovered from box while this witness stated that it was almirah but it makes no difference as both the witnesses clearly stated that the Kanthi was recovered from the house of accused Yunus Khan. 19. Similarly, PW-16 Nandlal stated that accused Hakim Khan voluntarily furnished an information to him on 29.12.2003 regarding golden Timaniya, which he reduced in writing as Ex.P/33. He further stated that in pursuance of information Ex.P/33, accused Hakim Khan produced a golden Timaniya from his shop. It was also corroborated by the statement of PW-24 Rajaram and both the witnesses deposed that accused Hakim Khan brought the Investigating Officer at his shop. The key of the shop was lying in between the bricks wherefrom he picked the same and opened his shop where a Timaniya was there is a plastic beg, which he handed over to the Investigating Officer, who sealed the same. 20. PW-15 Jeevan Ram, before whom test identification of Timaniya and Kanthi was conducted, stated that on 17.2.2004, the SHO, PS Siriyari submitted an application Ex.P/24, bearing endorsement of SDM, Sojat regarding identification of golden Kanthi and Timaniya relating to FIR No. 181/2003. 20. PW-15 Jeevan Ram, before whom test identification of Timaniya and Kanthi was conducted, stated that on 17.2.2004, the SHO, PS Siriyari submitted an application Ex.P/24, bearing endorsement of SDM, Sojat regarding identification of golden Kanthi and Timaniya relating to FIR No. 181/2003. Since SDM, Sojat ordered to conduct the test identification by him, he in pursuance of it summoned the witnesses for 19.2.2004 and on that day, he conducted the test identification proceedings and witnesses Jagdish PW-17, Dhanna Ram PW-19 and Chaina Ram PW-18 rightly identified the articles Kanthi and Timaniya and prepared the identification memo Ex.P/25. 21. PW-18 Chaina Ram, PW-19 Dhanna Ram and PW-17 Jagdish corroborated the statement of PW-15 and stated that they rightly identified the articles Kanthi and Timaniya before the Tehsildar. Thus, it was proved that the Kanthi and Timaniya were belonging to deceased Dakhu and were found in conscious possession of accused appellants. 22. PW-6 Bhikha Ram who saw the accused persons while throwing a dead body from the jeep noticed the number of jeep as 120. PW-16 Nandlal stated that on 27.12.2003, in seach of accused persons when he reached at Kamli Ghat, he saw a jeephaving black hood bearing No.RJ-22-T-0120 and two persons were sitting in the jeep. On asking, they told their names as Yunus Khan and Hakim Khan. He further stated there were blood stains inside the jeep on the front seat and black and white colour small bids were there in the jeep having 8 in number and in an iron blade, below the rear seat, there was a piece of red odhna. He further stated that the rear tyre of the jeep of driver side was blood-stained on outer surface. 23. PW-20, Bhikha Nath and PW-21 Narayan Lal also supported the statements of PW-16. PW-21 Narayan Lal clearly stated that on 25.12.2003, the jeep was in the possession of Yunus Khan, who was his driver and he used to return in the evening and in case of non-returning, he used to inform him on telephone but on that day accused Yunus Khan did not inform him regarding not returning in the evening. This witness also identified the accused Hakim Khan. PW-16 Nandlal stated that there were tyre marks at the spot, which were preserved and molds were found of the same jeep, which was being driven by accused Yunus Khan. 24. This witness also identified the accused Hakim Khan. PW-16 Nandlal stated that there were tyre marks at the spot, which were preserved and molds were found of the same jeep, which was being driven by accused Yunus Khan. 24. PW-25 Hazi Mohd., ASI also supported the statement of PW-16 Nandlal and stated that he developed the molds of typres belonging to jeep bearing No. RJ-22-T-0120 on 27.12.2003. He further deposed that on 7.1.2004, he also developed the molds of the stepny of the tyre and also developed two molds at the spot marked them as Q1 and Q2. PW-16 stated the said molds were sent to the FSL and from the report of FSL Ex.P/59, the tyres tread design reduced in the mold Q1 is found to be similar to the tyre tread design reduced in the mold S3 in respect of shape, design and dimensions of the jeep. Similarly, tyre tread design Q23 was found to be similar of S1 in respect of shape, design and dimensions. Q1 and Q2 molds were taken from the spot and S1 and S3 were developed from the jeep tyres and both were found similar. As such, the presence of jeep at the spot is provide by this evidence. 25. On serological examination blood-stained soil, odhna, ghaghra, seat cover and tyre with wheel, were found to be stained with human blood as per the FSL Report Ex.P/52, though blood group could not be determined. It also proves that the deceased was murdered in the jeep and her dead body was crushed by the wheels of the jeep. 26. PW-1 Dr. Jassa Ram, who was the chairman of the Medical Board who conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. 22 antemortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. Hence, it was a case of culpable homicide. 27. The prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length by the defence counsel before the learned trial Court. No previous enmity was proved. It was argued that PW-19 Dhanna Ram is the husband of deceased, PW-18 Chaina Ram is brother of deceased and PW-6 Bhikha Ram is co-sharer of PW-19 in his well and as such these are the interested witnesses and thus their statements could not be relied upon. No previous enmity was proved. It was argued that PW-19 Dhanna Ram is the husband of deceased, PW-18 Chaina Ram is brother of deceased and PW-6 Bhikha Ram is co-sharer of PW-19 in his well and as such these are the interested witnesses and thus their statements could not be relied upon. 28. In this regard, suffice to say that they have not named the accused persons. PW-18 Chaina Ram and PW-19 Dhanna Ram did not claim that they saw the accused and PW-6 Bhikha Ram has also not named the accused. He stated that two persons were therein the jeep and he saw the jeep numbers only and when the accused persons were put on identification parade, he rightly identified them. Therefore, merely on being some relation with deceased, their statements cannot become unbelievable. 29. So far as recovery of gold ornaments are concerned, the incident took place on 25.12.2003 and the accused persons were arrested on 27.12.2003 and the ornaments were recovered on 29.12.2003 from their conscious possession at their instance and the recovery witnesses, who are independent one, supported the recovery, which is corroborated by the statement of Investigating Officer PW-16 Nandlal and recovery witness PW-24 Rajaram are not related with the deceased. Both the independent witnesses. Though PW-16 is a police officer but this fact does not turn him as interested witness. 30. Mere saying that ornaments were provided by the complainant party cannot be accepted. 31. So far as non-examination of Kanya is concerned, it has no consequence as she simply informed his father PW-19 Dhanna Ram that she came to know that a dead body was thrown from the jeep. 32. So far as marking of ornaments are concerned, it is true that Kanthi and Timaniya were marked with the name of "Dakhu" but this fact is of no consequence as PW-19 Dhanna am deposed that he is an illiterate persons. Equally PW-18 Chaina Ram also did not say that he identified the Kanthi and Timaniya by the name of Dakhu. Equally PW-17 Jagdish, who prepared the ornaments and exhibited his bills as Ex.P/49 and Ex.P/50 also did not state that he identified the Timaniya and Kanthi by the name of deceased. As such, when the witnesses did not identify the articles by the marks thereon, then this argument has also no force. Equally PW-17 Jagdish, who prepared the ornaments and exhibited his bills as Ex.P/49 and Ex.P/50 also did not state that he identified the Timaniya and Kanthi by the name of deceased. As such, when the witnesses did not identify the articles by the marks thereon, then this argument has also no force. Further for the illiterate witnesses, the name written on the ornaments is of no value. 33. So far as entry of malkhana register dated 27.12.2003 regarding depositing the Timaniya and Kanthi on 27.12.2003 in the malkhana while the recovery was said to be made on 29.12.2003, is concerned, the statement of PW-28 Parasmal is relevant. His statements were recorded on 01.11.2003 and thereafter on 07.05.2005. He clearly stated that the articles relating to RR No.700 were deposited in the malkhana on 27.12.2003 and articles relating to RR No.7533 were deposited in the malkhana on 29.12.2003. Ex.P/60A, copy of malkhana register, is clear in this respect that the golden Kanthi bearing 13 phularia and Golden Timaniya in sealed position, were deposited in the malkhana on 29.12.2003. As such this argument also has no value. 34. We find no illegality or irregularity in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer. Even if there was any irregularity, it will not bar or prohibit on prosecution from relying upon the evidence/material collected. In Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi & Ors. (AIR 1973 SC 348), it was held as under : "It would thus be seen that in India, as in England, where the test of admissibility of evidence lies in relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure, is not liable to be shut out." We do not find any major lapse in the investigation to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The gold ornaments Kanthi and Timaniya belonging to the deceased were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused persons at their instance. Both were having specific mark of identification and were not easily available. PW-17 Jagdish, PW-18 Chaina Ram and PW-19 Dhanna Ram identified the articles in test identification. PW-19 also produced the bills of purchase of the articles. The gold ornaments Kanthi and Timaniya belonging to the deceased were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused persons at their instance. Both were having specific mark of identification and were not easily available. PW-17 Jagdish, PW-18 Chaina Ram and PW-19 Dhanna Ram identified the articles in test identification. PW-19 also produced the bills of purchase of the articles. The accused-appellants, having not given any cogent explanation, having possession of the articles, the arguments adduced by learned counsel for the appellant do not create any doubt in the prosecution evidence. 35. The story comes out from the prosecution evidence is that the father-in-law of the deceased died so the deceased was in grief. After customary rites, she went to her paternal house as per customs on 25.12.2003 at 11.00 a.m. from her matrimonial home after assuring her husband that she will return at about 5.00 p.m. She went to her paternal house where PW-18 Chaina Ram was there and at 4.00 p.m., she returned with her brother who left her on road. Thereafter, at about 5.00 p.m., PW-6 Bhikha Ram saw the accused persons in the jeep with a lady. Younger accused Yunus Khan was driving the jeep and elder (Hakim Khan) was beating the lady in the back portion of the jeep. Thereafter, the body of the lady was thrown near Aangdosh village and the jeep returned. The body was identified as that of Dakhu W/o Dhanna Ram PW-19. The Timaniya and Kanthi, which were wearing by the deceased while leaving her matrimonial house and paternal house, were missing, which were recovered at the instance of accused persons from their conscious possession. The human blood was found on the seat cover of the jeep as well as on the tyre of the jeep and the accused persons were identified by PW-6 Bhikha Ram. 36. From the evidence discussed above, it can safely be said under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the accused-appellants not only took part in robbery but also in murder of the deceased. 37. From the above prosecution evidence, following circumstances emerge:- (i) The accused-appellants were seen while beating and throwing the deceased from the jeep. (ii) The deceased was identified as Dakhu W/o Dhanna Ram by PW-19 complainant. (iii) Kanthi and Timaniya were missing from the body of the deceased. 37. From the above prosecution evidence, following circumstances emerge:- (i) The accused-appellants were seen while beating and throwing the deceased from the jeep. (ii) The deceased was identified as Dakhu W/o Dhanna Ram by PW-19 complainant. (iii) Kanthi and Timaniya were missing from the body of the deceased. (iv) The jeep was found in possession of accused persons and bids and piece of odhna and blood stains were found in jeep and on its tyre. (v) The Timaniya and Kanthi belonging to the deceased were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused persons at their instance. (vi) The tyre marks of the alleged jeep were found where the body of the deceased was thrown. (vii) The accused persons were identified by the prosecution witnesses. (viii) The Timaniya and Kanthi were also identified by the prosecution witnesses. 38. In the case of Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1983 SC 446 ), the accused was charged for murder and robbery. He could be arrested after the lapse of a period of one year and some stolen articles were recovered pursuant to his statement under Section 27, Evidence Act. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the argument was advanced that since a period of one year elapsed between the murder and the discovery of the stolen articles, the only reasonable inference that could be drawn under Section 114(a), Evidence Act was that the accused was merely receiver of stolen property and had not committed the murder. Overruling the argument. Their Lordships held that since the accused was absconding, the presumption of both murder and robbery could legitimately be drawn against him even though the stolen properties were recovered after the lapse of one year. 39. In another case of Mukund vs. State of M.P. ((1997) 2 SCC 130), the prosecution case was that in the night intervening 17.01.1994, Anuj Prasad Dubey, committed murder of his wife and their two children and looted their ornaments and other valuable articles. On the next night, the appellants were arrested and interrogated. Pursuant to the statement made by one accused, gold and silver ornaments and other articles were recovered. On the next night, the appellants were arrested and interrogated. Pursuant to the statement made by one accused, gold and silver ornaments and other articles were recovered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on an earlier decision reported in Gulab Chand vs. State of M.P. ((1995) 3 SCR 23), observed as under: "If in a given case – as the present one – the prosecution can successfully prove that the offences of robbery and murder were committed in one and the same transaction and soon thereafter the stolen properties were recovered, a Court may legitimately draw a presumption not only of the fact that the person in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he committed the murder." In the said case, the appellant could not given an explanation as to how he came into possession of various gold ornaments and other articles belonging to deceased and the members of his family. The appellants also could not given any reasonable explanation how he sustained injuries on hail body and how his shirt became blood-stained. Thus, the presumption under illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act was drawn that the appellant therein had committed the murders and the robbery. 40. In Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan ( (2001) 6 SCC 296 ), the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are relevant: "The possession of the fruits of the crime, soon after it has been committed, affords a strong and reasonable ground for the presumption that the party in whose possession they are found is the real offender, unless he can account for such possession in some way consistent with his innocence. It is founded on the obvious principle that if such possession had been lawfully acquired, that party would be able to given an account of the manner in which it was obtained. His unwillingness or inability to afford any reasonable explanation is regarded as amounting to strong, self-inculpatory evidence. If the party gives a reasonable explanation as to how be obtained it, the courts will be justified in not drawing the presumption of guilt. His unwillingness or inability to afford any reasonable explanation is regarded as amounting to strong, self-inculpatory evidence. If the party gives a reasonable explanation as to how be obtained it, the courts will be justified in not drawing the presumption of guilt. The fore of this rule of presumption depends upon the recency of the possession as related to the crime and that if the interval of time be considerable, the presumption is weakened and more especially if the goods are of such kind as in the ordinary course of such things frequently change hands. It is not possible to fix any precise period in this regard. The Supreme Court has drawn similar presumption of murder and robbery for a series of decisions especially when the accused was found in possession of these incriminating articles and was not in a position to give any reasonable explanation." 41. In the case of Geejaganda Somaiah vs. State of Karnataka ( (2007) 9 SCC 315 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "28. Besides Section 27 of the Evidence act, the courts can draw presumptions under Section 114, Illustration (a) and Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In Gulab Chand vs. State of M.P., where ornaments of the deceased were recovered from the possession of the accused immediately after the occurrence, this Court held: (SCC pp.577-78, para 4) 'It is true that simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stole articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. It has been indicated by this Court in Sanwat Khan vs. State of Rajasthan that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from certain circumstances. It has also been indicated that where only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder. A note of caution has been given by this Court by indicating that suspicion should not take the place of proof. A note of caution has been given by this Court by indicating that suspicion should not take the place of proof. It appears that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment taken note of the said decision of this Court. But as rightly indicated by the High Court, the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court has placed reliance on the other decision of this Court rendered in Tulsiram Kanu vs. State. In the said decision, this Court has indicated that the presumption permitted to be drawn under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence act has to be read along with the 'important time factor'. If the ornaments in possession of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But, if several months had expired in the interval, the presumption cannot be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the present case, it has been established that immediately on the next day of the murder, the accused Gulab Chand had sold some of the ornaments belonging to the deceased and within 3-4 days, the recovery of the said stolen articles was made from his house at the instance of the accused. Such closed proximity of the recovery, which has been indicated by this Court as an 'important time factor', should not be lost sight of in deciding the present case. It may be indicated here that by a later decision of this Court in Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka this Court has held that the nature of the presumption and Illustration (a) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of evidence adduced. No fixed time-limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stole article is or is not, calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period. If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period. In our view, it has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and from nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of the said offence can be drawn against the appellant. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused. In the facts of this case it appears to us that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under Illustration (a) of Section 114 Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments." In the case in hand, the case is not only based on the recovery but the appellants-accused were found with deceased in the jeep soon before the incident and were seen throwing the body of deceased from the jeep. As such, the prosecution has fairly proved that the appellants-accused, in furtherance of common intention, abducted the deceased Dakhu in order to commit robbery and murder of Smt. Dakhu after entering into criminal conspiracy and after that they thrown the body of the deceased. 42. In the light of the above discussion, we find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence. As such, the appeal filed by the appellant is without merits and is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of sentence of the learned trial Court is maintained. The trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of this order.