JUDGMENT : Sneh Prashar, J. - Appellants-accused Baljit Singh, Avtar Singh, Rama Shankar alias Manka and Rajinder Kumar alias Ajinder Kumar vide judgment and order of sentence dated 24.05.2003 were held guilty and were convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 449, 457 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and were sentenced as under :- (i) Section 449 I.P.C.to undergo imprisonment for life; (ii) Section 457 I.P.C.to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; and (iii) Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Precisely, the story of the prosecution was that on 23.08.2000 Mohinder Singh son of Darshan Singh vide his statement Ex.PD/1 recorded by Kuldip Singh, Incharge, Police Post Sanuar, reported to the police that his cousin Kewal Singh, Sarpanch of Village, had gone to England to see his son Billa about 12/13 days back. He had left his wife's brother Hardial Singh son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Motipur, District Nanital (U.P.) and his maid servant Malka daughter of Kishan Chand to take care of his house. Malka had been working as maid servant in the house of Kewal Singh since her childhood. On that day i.e. 23.08.200 at about 4.00 a.m., he (Mohinder Singh) and Karnail Singh son of Thakar Singh came to the house of Kewal Singh, hearing shouts of Malka. As he entered the house, they found Hardial Singh lying dead in a pool of blood on the floor in the Lobby with injuries on his person caused with a sharp edged weapon and the bolt of the door of the store was broken and the articles were lying scattered. Mohinder Singh added that Avtar Singh son of Sarwan Singh, resident of Jagatpura, had illicit relations with the maid servant Malka. He had many times restrained Avtar Singh from visiting the house of Kewal Singh in indulging into illegal activities. Hardial Singh also used to stop him (Avtar Singh), so he believed that Avtar Singh alongwith his companions had murdered Hardial Singh to remove the obstruction in his way. He had many times restrained Avtar Singh from visiting the house of Kewal Singh in indulging into illegal activities. Hardial Singh also used to stop him (Avtar Singh), so he believed that Avtar Singh alongwith his companions had murdered Hardial Singh to remove the obstruction in his way. The appellants-accused had also committed theft of valuable articles from the house of Kewal Singh, Sarpanch. The detail of the articles could only be described by the owners of the house. 3. Based on the statement of Mohinder Singh, formal First Information Report was recorded. Appellants-accused Baljit Singh, Avtar Singh, Rama Shankar alias Manka and Rajinder Kumar alias Ajinder Kumar were arrested and interrogated. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 4. On completion of investigation, inquiry report as envisaged under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") was presented by the prosecution against all the four accused-appellants. The case was committed and on the basis of the material available the accused-appellants were charge sheeted for the commission of offence under Sections 449, 457 and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. for having committed house trespass, theft of ornaments and murder murder of Hardial Singh. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 5-6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh Gill, PW2 Malka, PW3 Harish Tulli, Ex- Professor, PW4 complainant Mohinder Singh, PW5 Sikandar Singh, PW6 Kewal Singh, PW7 Subhash Kumar, Photographer, PW8 Indresh Khanna, PW9 Head Constable Bhupinder Singh, PW10 Balwinder Kaur, PW11 Head Constable Ashok Kumar, PW12 Head Constable Karnail Singh, PW13 Head Constable Daljit Singh, PW14 Sub Inspector Manjinder Singh, Finger Print Expert, PW15 Ram Dev, Chief Pharmacist, PW16 Dr. R.S. Randhawa, PW17 Sub Inspector Prabhu Dayal, Photographer, PW18 Jaswinder Singh, Inspector, PW19 Assistant Sub Inspector Bhag Singh, PW20 Head Constable Lalwinder Singh, PW21 Sub Inspector Kuldip Singh, PW22 Assistant Sub Inspector Puneet Singh, PW23 Head Constable Dev Raj, PW24 Rajbir Singh, PW25 Constable Durga Dass and PW26 Head Constable Harnek Singh. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them which they denied and pleaded innocence. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel representing the accused, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused (appellants) as indicated above. 8. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them which they denied and pleaded innocence. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel representing the accused, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused (appellants) as indicated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts-appellants, Baljit Singh, Avtar Singh, Rama Shankar alias Manka and Rajinder Kumar alias Ajinder Kumar preferred separate appeals as indicated above. 9. Heard the submissions made by Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. AG Punjab. 10. The allegations of the prosecution rested on four sets of witnesses; (i) who witnessed the occurrence and saw the appellants accused committing the crime and specifically named them in their statements recorded by the police, these were PW2 Malka, who was working as maid servant in the house of Hardial Singh, PW4 Mohinder Singh, who lodged the First Information Report Ex.PD/1 and PW5 Sikandar Singh, who incidentally was sitting beside the cold storage wall for easing himself and had seen the appellants-accused armed with a Gandasi and talking to each other about division of stolen articles when they crossed him; (ii) the public witnesses and officials of the police department in the presence of whom, the stolen ornaments were recovered from the appellants-accused and were identified by PW10 Balwinder Kaur, sister of the deceased and owner of the house from where the ornaments were stolen; (iii) the witnesses in whose presence, appellant accused Baljit Singh made disclosure statement Ex.PRR on 02.09.2000, in pursuance of which, on the same day, he got recovered a dagger (Chhura) used in commission of crime, which was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PTT; and (iv) the doctors, namely, PW1 Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh Gill, who medico legally examined appellant-accused Baljit Singh on 04.09.2000, PW3 Dr. Harish Tuli, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Hardial Singh on 23.08.2000, PW6 Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh Gill, who medico legally examined appellant-accused Baljit Singh on 04.09.2000, PW3 Dr. Harish Tuli, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Hardial Singh on 23.08.2000, PW6 Dr. R.S. Randhawa, who had taken blood sample of appellant-accused Baljit Singh on 05.09.2000 on request of the police and had also medico legally examined appellants-accused Rama Shankar alias Manka, Rajinder Kumar alias Ajinder Kumar, Baljit Singh alias Thandu and Avtar Singh and lastly PW15 Ram Dev, Chief Pharmacist of Civil Hospital, Samana whom appellants Baljit Singh and Rama Shankar approached for treatment of their minor injuries at 6:30 A.M. on 23.08.2000. 11. Assailing the credibility of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, learned counsel for the appellants emphatically argued that none of the witnesses could offer substantive and reliable evidence worth reliance. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel pointed out that PW2 Malka was working as maid in the house of Kewal Singh Sarpanch for the last 7-8 years prior to the occurrence and therefore, was under the control and influence of Kewal Singh, who was none else but real brother-in-law of deceased Hardial Singh. From a person of her stature, one could not expect independent and uninfluenced version. PW4 Mohinder Singh was none else but the real uncle of Sarpanch Kewal Singh. Similarly, PW5 Sikandar Singh was also a relative of Kewal Singh, as was admitted by him in the very first line of his cross-examination. PW6 Kewal Singh was naturally an interested witness because it was at his house that theft had taken place and his brother-in-law, whom he had left in his house as caretaker while going abroad, had been murdered. Similarly, PW10 Balwinder Kaur was sister of the deceased and, therefore, her statement could also not be accepted at face value. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that the ornaments named by her in her statement were owned by her and had been left by her in the house before going abroad. No list of ornaments, if any, kept by her was produced to prove that the said ornaments were found missing after the occurrence. 12. Learned counsel contended that PW2 Malka claimed that she had seen the appellants during the occurrence. No list of ornaments, if any, kept by her was produced to prove that the said ornaments were found missing after the occurrence. 12. Learned counsel contended that PW2 Malka claimed that she had seen the appellants during the occurrence. She stated that Avtar Singh was known to her for about 1= year prior to the occurrence, but she did not explain how the other appellants-accused, namely, Baljit Singh alias Thandu Ram, Rama Shankar and Rajinder Kumar were known to her. She stated that during midnight, appellant-accused Avtar Singh pulled out the outer door of her room and then entered the room and gagged her mouth. She was working as a maid and was the only lady present in the house, but she could not mention, why the door of her room was open in the midnight. PW4 Mohinder Singh, lodger of the First Information Report, deposed that Malka had illicit relations with Avtar Singh and that he and Hardial Singh used to stop them from having such relations. From the statement of PW4, it was apparent that PW2 Malka was a lady of loose virtues. The said allegation coupled with the fact that she had left the door of her room open during the night, indicates that she herself was responsible for the occurrence, which she got committed through some unknown people and falsely implicated the appellants-accused for settling some concealed scores. 13. As regards PW4 complainant Mohinder Singh, learned counsel argued that he was not an eyewitness of the occurrence. According to his own statement, at about 4 a.m. during the night intervening 22/23.08.2000, he heard shouts of Malka and Karnail Singh from the house of Kewal Singh and when he reached in the Lobby, he found Hardial Singh lying in a pool of blood and the articles in the house were scattered. He neither saw the appellants-accused committing the crime, nor saw them fleeing from the spot, yet he named all four of them in his complaint to the police. It shows that because he was hostile towards the appellants he named them. 14. Similarly, impugning the statement of PW5 Sikandar Singh, learned counsel asserted that his statement by itself was sufficient to prove that he was a procured witness. It shows that because he was hostile towards the appellants he named them. 14. Similarly, impugning the statement of PW5 Sikandar Singh, learned counsel asserted that his statement by itself was sufficient to prove that he was a procured witness. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that while sitting in the field to answer the call of nature during midnight, he had seen the appellants-accused going towards Boota Singh Wala and was even able to hear them talking about the division of Booti i.e. stolen gold ornaments etc. He named all the four accused and stated that they were armed with a Gandasi having a short handle. He did not name the person out of the four accused, in whose hand, he saw the Gandasi. Despite having witnessed the said scene, he stated that he went and slept in his sheller and it was in the morning that he was told by his father that Avtar Singh and his co-accused had murdered Hardial Singh. 15. Further, referring to the statements of PW2 Malka and PW4 Mohinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellants argued that both the said witnesses named one Karnail Singh as an eyewitness of the occurrence. But for the reasons unexplained, Karnail Singh who was an equally important witness, was not examined by the prosecution. His absence shows that he was not ready to endorse the story fabricated by complainant PW4 Mohinder Singh. Hence, learned counsel urged that the evidence of the prosecution was lacking on almost all material particulars and the witnesses examined were not true or trustworthy. 16. To us, there appears to be no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants-accused. PW2 Malka was an eyewitness of the occurrence. Her presence in the house was natural as she was working as a maid in the house and was living in the same. Giving a detailed and crystal clear narration of the occurrence, she deposed that on the night intervening 22/23.08.2000, she and Hardial Singh, brother-in-law of Kewal Singh, Sarpanch were present in the house of Kewal Singh, who alongwith his wife Balwinder Kaur had gone to England to meet their son. She and Hardial Singh had been left as caretakers to look after the house. That night, after taking meals she and Hardial Singh had gone to sleep in their respective rooms. She and Hardial Singh had been left as caretakers to look after the house. That night, after taking meals she and Hardial Singh had gone to sleep in their respective rooms. At about midnight, Avtar Singh pulled out the outer door of her room. As she got up Avtar Singh gagged her mouth and threatened to kill her if she raised alarm. He switched on the light of the room and appellants-accused Baljit Singh, Rama Shankar and Rajinder Kumar also entered her room. Rajinder Kumar was armed with a Gandasi. Baljit held a dagger (Chhura) and Rama Shankar held a chain of motorcycle. Hearing the noise, Hardial Singh got up. He came out of his room and switched on the light of the Lobby. Rajinder Kumar, Rama Shankar and Baljit Singh immediately started causing injuries to him with their respective weapons. After killing Hardial Singh, they opened the lock at the store and committed theft of the articles lying therein. Before leaving the house, they threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise she and her family would meet the same fate as Hardial Singh. PW2 Malka added that when the appellants were leaving the house, she saw that blood was oozing from the right hand of Baljit Singh, one of the assailant. After they left she went to the house of Karnail Singh and woke him up and they raised alarm, hearing which, Mohinder Singh came and they saw that Hardial Singh was lying dead. 17. PW2 Malka was cross examined by the accused at length but nothing such could be derived from her, which could be enough to impeach her credibility. Rather, her answers to the quarries put to her were firm and consistent with her examination in chief. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that she was having some kind of relation with Avtar Singh, that would not go to her discredit because in that case, it appears she was used by the accused for easy entrance to the house for committing the crime planned by them. 18. Importantly, PW2 Malka deposed that all the four accused were known to her. She also stated that the appellants were able to enter her room because door of her room was not properly bolted from inside. 18. Importantly, PW2 Malka deposed that all the four accused were known to her. She also stated that the appellants were able to enter her room because door of her room was not properly bolted from inside. Admittedly, no identification parade was arranged by the police for identification of the appellants by PW2 Malka, but that was not required when it was her outright claim that all the four accused were known to her and she had seen and identified them during the occurrence. She not just named the accused, but also disclosed separately the weapons held by them. Had there been any malafide intention on her part, she would not have acted so fast after the occurrence to inform the relevant people around the house when she had been threatened by the appellants that if she informed anyone she and her family members would be killed. 19. Indeed, PW4 complainant Mohinder Singh reached the spot after the appellants had left, but he categorically stated that he was attracted by the shouts of Malka and Karnail Singh. PW2 Malka deposed that after the appellants fled scaling over the wall of the house, she silently went to the house of Karnail Singh and informed him. They both immediately returned and raised shouts. It is obvious that immediately on arrival of PW4 complainant Mohinder Singh, Malka had informed him about the identity of the appellants, because of which he was able to name them without any fault in the First Information Report Ex.PD/1, promptly lodged by him with the police. He stated that his house and the house of Kewal Singh were adjoining to each other. It being so, he naturally was the first person who heard the shouts of Malka and Karnail Singh. 20. Evidently, Karnail Singh was not an eyewitness of the occurrence. After the appellants had scaled over the wall, Malka had gone and given him the information. His source of knowledge about the occurrence was the same as that of PW4 complainant Mohinder Singh. It is not the requirement of law to produce voluminous evidence to prove a factum. Only material witnesses are to be examined, who are able to satisfy the conscious of the Court of the truth in their version. 21. His source of knowledge about the occurrence was the same as that of PW4 complainant Mohinder Singh. It is not the requirement of law to produce voluminous evidence to prove a factum. Only material witnesses are to be examined, who are able to satisfy the conscious of the Court of the truth in their version. 21. Perusal of the statements of PW2 Malka and PW4 Mohinder Singh shows that they gave a consistent and concised version about the happenings that took place in their presence. Malka was an eyewitness to the murder of Hardial Singh and theft of valuable articles from the house of Karnail Singh by the appellants whom she was able to identify. Mohinder Singh had arrived at the spot hearing shouts of Malka and had found Hardial Singh lying in a pool of blood with injuries on his person, caused with a sharp edged weapon and had also seen the lock and bolt of the store broken and the articles lying scattered. A motorcycle chain used in crime was also lying near the dead body. Mohinder Singh named the accused in the First Information Report at the instance of Malka and did not cross his limits by saying that he had seen the accused fleeing away from the spot etc. Thus, the scrutiny of the statements of PW2 Malka and PW4 Mohinder Singh proves that they were no doubt natural and truthful witnesses. 22. There appears nothing improbable in the statement of PW5 Sikandar Singh, who stated that during the relevant night at about 1 a.m. when he was returning home after meeting his friend and had reached near Joriyan Road, due to pain in his stomach he went to answer the call of nature and in the light of vehicles moving on the road, he saw Avtar Singh, Baljit Singh, Rama Shankar and Rajinder Kumar armed with a Gandasi, having a short handle, passing from there. His version that he heard them talking about division of "Booti" may or may not be important, but it was certainly important that he saw an injury on the hand of Baljit Singh. When there is nothing to indicate that this witness had any score to settle with the accused, there is no reason to disbelieve him. After seeing them he went and slept because at that point of time he could not connect the appellants to any particular incident. When there is nothing to indicate that this witness had any score to settle with the accused, there is no reason to disbelieve him. After seeing them he went and slept because at that point of time he could not connect the appellants to any particular incident. More so, it was in the presence of PW5 Sikandar Singh and PW6 Kewal Singh that on 31.08.2000 the police arrested all the four accused-appellants. PW5 stated that the appellants tried to run away seeing the police party but were nabbed by them. He further proved the disclosure statement Ex.PK/1, suffered by appellant Rajinder Kumar, in pursuance of which, he got recovered gold ornaments fallen in his share from the place, where he had concealed the same. 23. Likewise, PW6 Kewal Singh besides proving arrest of the appellants in his presence deposed that at the time of arrest, they saw that there was an injury on the right hand of Baljit Singh. He also stated that he was a witness to the disclosure statement Ex.PM suffered by Baljit Singh, in pursuance of which he got recovered a bag containing gold ornaments, detail of which was given by him and he proved the memo Ex.PN, vide which, the ornaments were taken in possession and he signed the same as an attesting witness. PW21 Sub Inspector Kuldip Singh, the Investigating Officer proved the disclosure statement Ex.PK/1 of appellant Rajinder Kumar which led to recovery of gold ornaments weighing 285 grams which were embedded under the earth in the courtyard of his house. The ornaments recovered were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PL. 24. It was further established from the statement of PW21 Sub Inspector Kuldip Singh that on 02.09.2000 on interrogation appellant Rajinder Kumar suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PQQ, in pursuance of which he got recovered some gold ornaments wrapped in a glaced paper and concealed in a heap of fodder. Apart from recovery of stolen ornaments, PW21 Sub Inspector Kuldip Singh proved disclosure statement Ex.PQQ of appellant Rajinder Kumar, in pursuance of which he got recovered Gandasi Ex.P37 from his exclusive possession by pointing out the place where he had concealed the same. The Gandasi was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PXX signed by appellant Baljit Singh and other attested by witnesses. The Gandasi was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PXX signed by appellant Baljit Singh and other attested by witnesses. Similarly, on interrogation, appellant Baljit Singh made disclosure statement Ex.PRR, in pursuance of which he got recovered a bloodstained dagger (Chhura) Ex.P36 from the place pointed out by him which was exclusively in his knowledge. The dagger (Chhura) was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.P55 duly attested by the witnesses. 25. PW2 Malka, the eyewitness of the occurrence had deposed that after having murdered Har Dayal Singh, when the appellants were leaving, she saw that blood was oozing from the right hand of Baljit Singh, which means that Baljit Singh suffered an injury on his right hand during the occurrence which was bleeding and was seen by Malka when he was leaving the spot. As observed above, PW5 Sikandar also stated that when during midnight he saw the appellants passing in a hurry, he saw an injury on the hand of Baljit Singh. The above statement of PW2 Malka and PW5 Sikandar stands substantiated by PW15 Ram Dev, Chief Pharmacist, Civil Hospital, Samana. He deposed that on 23.08.2000 at 6:00 A.M., when he was on duty in Civil Hospital Samana, two persons, who told their names as Baljit Singh and Rama Shankar, had come to the hospital for treatment of minor injuries on their bodies. The boy, who told his name as Baljit Singh, was having an injury on his right hand. During his statement PW15 correctly pointed out towards Baljit Singh and Rama Shankar out of the four accused present in the Court, as the two persons who had approached him for treatment of some minor injuries on their persons. He further stated that the boys told him that they had received injuries in normal course and do not want to get any legal proceeding initiated. He made an entry in the emergency register maintained in the hospital and obtained their thumb impressions against the entry. Certified copy of the entry in the register proved by him is Ex.PU. It was further in the statement of PW15 that he went to Dr. Satish Kumar Arora, who was working as Emergency Medical Officer to request him to examine the two appellants, but by the time he came back, both the boys-accused/appellants had slipped away. 26. Certified copy of the entry in the register proved by him is Ex.PU. It was further in the statement of PW15 that he went to Dr. Satish Kumar Arora, who was working as Emergency Medical Officer to request him to examine the two appellants, but by the time he came back, both the boys-accused/appellants had slipped away. 26. Corroboration of the statement of PW2 Malka that Baljit Singh had suffered an injury on his right hand which she saw was bleeding by medical record and by an independent person namely, PW15 Ram Dev, Chief Pharmacist of Civil Hospital, Samana, not only proves the presence of appellant Baljit Singh at the spot during the occurrence but also confirms that the statement of PW2 Malka and PW4 complainant Mohinder Singh was correct and reliable. 27. As already discussed above, PW5 Sikandar Singh proved recovery of stolen gold ornaments weighing 285 grams from appellant Rajinder Kumar. PW6 Kewal Singh testified about recovery of gold ornaments weighing 335 grams from appellant Baljit Singh. PW21 Sub Inspector Kuldip Singh proved recovery of stolen gold ornaments from appellants Rajinder Kumar and Baljit Singh. PW22 stated about recovery of stolen gold and silver ornaments from Rama Shankar and PW18 Inspector Jaswant Singh testified that appellant Avtar Singh got recovered stolen gold ornaments fallen his share from the place where he had concealed them in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PAA. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that no independent public witness was examined by the prosecution for proving the disclosure statements allegedly suffered by appellants and alleged recoveries made from each of them, is of no force. One public witness Davinder Singh was joined by the investigation officer, but had to be given up by learned Public Prosecutor vide his statement dated 06.03.2003, for having been won over by the accused. It is a known fact that in such criminal cases people who gather at the time of recovery etc. normally refuse to become witness fearing hostility of the culprit. When recovery is effected from a residential house of a culprit, on lookers are the neighbourers and residents of the same locality. To avoid enmity they opt to remain neutral and no resident of the locality comes forward to join the police as a witness. The inability shown by them restrains the police to force them to become witness. When recovery is effected from a residential house of a culprit, on lookers are the neighbourers and residents of the same locality. To avoid enmity they opt to remain neutral and no resident of the locality comes forward to join the police as a witness. The inability shown by them restrains the police to force them to become witness. Therefore, non joining of an independent witness by itself does not render the testimony of the official witnesses suspicious or unreliable especially when there is nothing to indicate that the police officials, for any reason, were hostile towards the appellants. 28. The case in hand was of a heinous crime that is of house trespass, theft and murder, the complainant and the accused hailed from the same area. Recoveries were effected from residential houses of the appellants. In said set of facts except for the complainant party, it was difficult for the police to find some independent public witness for proving recoveries and discoveries made in pursuance of disclosure statements suffered by the appellants and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the Investigation Officers, from whom nothing adversely effecting their credibility could be derived by the appellants despite thorough cross-examination. 29. Last but the least, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that no motive for commission of offence by the appellants could be proved by the prosecution, is devoid of merit. PW6 Kewal Singh who was Sarpanch of the village had gone abroad leaving in his house his maid servant PW2 Malka and his brother-in-law Har Dayal Singh as caretakers. The appellants armed with deadly weapons like 'dagger', 'Gandasa' and 'chain of motorcycle' etc. trespassed into the house during midnight with a common intention to commit theft. As Har Dayal Singh woke up and switched on the light of the Lobby, with the result that he was able to see them and could become a hurdle in their planned action, he was murdered. It appears that PW2 Malka, the other eyewitness was left alive feeling that being poor young girl, she may not speak out on having been threatened of being eliminated alongwith her family. The 'Booti' was collected by the assailants after committing murder and that proved the motive behind the crime. 30. Thus, we conclude that the evidence produced by the prosecution is very much consistent, cogent and worth reliance. The 'Booti' was collected by the assailants after committing murder and that proved the motive behind the crime. 30. Thus, we conclude that the evidence produced by the prosecution is very much consistent, cogent and worth reliance. The prosecution successfully established the charges against the appellants Baljit Singh, Avtar Singh, Rama Shankar alias Manka and Rajinder Kumar alias Ajinder Kumar for the commission of offence under Sections 449, 457 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court and the order of sentence passed are upheld. All the three appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed.