Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1751 (ALL)

Satnam Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-05-28

ANANT KUMAR, SHEO KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Anant Kumar, J. 1. This criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused persons Satnam Singh and Jasveer Singh alias Minna against the judgment and order dated 12.3.1986 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1983 and connected Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1983 whereby they have been convicted under section 302/34 I.P.C. and has been sentenced for life imprisonment. They have further been convicted under section 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. They have further been convicted under section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The brief facts as relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged by one Rajendra Prasad son of Jhandumal Goyal, resident of Village Dandia Paigambarpur, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur on 18.1.1983 who is the relative of the deceased Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the complainant was informed at his shop by servant of Moti Ram namely Banwari Lal. At about 5.00 p.m. he told that Moti Ram and his son Suresh Kumar had gone Rudrapur yesterday on Rajdoot motorcycle. The school going children have seen their dead bodies in sugarcane field near village Dalaki and both the persons are lying dead in the said sugar cane field. They are having injuries on their bodies and it appears that they have been killed. Their motorcycle No. USI 5978 is also missing. 2. On the basis of the written complaint, chik F.I.R. was prepared. The Investigating Officer Sri Mahak Singh visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, inquest reports of the dead bodies of the deceased persons were prepared and their bodies were sent for post-mortem. From the spot, one pair of shoe of the deceased Moti Ram one pair of sock,  Rs. 25/-, one packet Biri and match box, one cap, bloodstained soil and plain soil were collected. He further took in possession one cap, one pair socks, one ring, one Mafler and bloodstained soil and plain soil from the spot of the deceased Suresh Kumar. 3. Dr. 25/-, one packet Biri and match box, one cap, bloodstained soil and plain soil were collected. He further took in possession one cap, one pair socks, one ring, one Mafler and bloodstained soil and plain soil from the spot of the deceased Suresh Kumar. 3. Dr. M.S. Seth, Medical Officer, Rampur had performed autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased persons Suresh Kumar and Moti Ram and found following ante-mortem injuries on the persons of the deceased Ante-mortem injuries of the deceased Suresh Kumar. (1) Incised wound 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep over right nostril. Skin missing. (2) Incised wound 1.25 c.m. x 1.25 c.m. x muscle deep over left nostril. Skin missing. (3) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x chest cavity deep. Right side chest 2.5 c.m. below the middle of right clavicle. (4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x chest cavity deep left side chest 1.5 c.m. inner to left nipple at 10 O' clock position. (5) Incised wound 2. c.m. x 0.75 c.m. x chest cavity deep 0.75 c.m. inner to injury No. 4. (6) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep left side abdomen 6 c.m. above umblicus at 2 O'clock position. (7) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x abdominal cavity deep. Left iliac fossa, 9 c.m. below the umblicus at 5 O'clock position. Omentum coming out. (8) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x abdominal cavity deep left side abdomen 0.5 cm. outer to the mid line, 7 c.m. below the umblicus omentum coming out. (9) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.25 c.m. x skin deep. Dorsum of right hand in between the thumb and index finger. (10) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x skin deep lower and outer part left buttock. Margins of all the wounds were clean cut. 4. On internal examination he found right and left pleura cut under injuries No. 3 and 4 respectively. Right lung was cut under injury No. 3, while left lung was cut under injury No. 4. Heart was empty and chest cavity contained two litres of fluid and clotted blood in the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. These ante-mortem injuries could be caused with a sharp edged weapon like Chhuri. Heart was empty and chest cavity contained two litres of fluid and clotted blood in the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. These ante-mortem injuries could be caused with a sharp edged weapon like Chhuri. The death of the deceased was possible on 17.1.1983 at 5 p.m. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka-6. Ante-mortem injuries of the deceased Moti Ram. (1) Right and left side of the nose completely cut off, margins clean cut. (2) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x whole thickness of the upper lip in the mid line. (3) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.75 c.m. x muscle deep left side chest 4 cm above the nipple at 1 O'clock position. (4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x chest cavity deep left side chest just below the areola at 7 O' clock position. (5) Incised wound 3.5 c.m. x 1.25 c.m. x chest cavity deep right side chest 6 c.m. below the nipple at 5 O' clock position. (6) Incised wound 1 c.m. x 0.25 c.m. x muscle deep. Right side back just below scapula. (7) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x whole of the lope of left ear. (8) Incised wound 1 c.m. x 0.25 c.m. x skin deep left side forehead 4 c.m. above the middle of right eye brow. Margins of all wounds were clean cut. 5. On internal examination, he found left and right pleura cut under injuries No. 4 and 5 respectively. Right and left lung were found cut under injuries No. 5 and 4 respectively. The chest cavity contained two litres of fluid and clotted blood. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. These ante-mortem injuries could be caused with a sharp edged weapon like Chhuri. The death of deceased was possible on 17.1.83 at 5 p.m. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka-7. 6. During the course of investigation, the name of the accused persons came into light and on the basis of an information, the accused persons were arrested on 31.1.83 and from their possession, looted Rajdoot motorcycle USI 5978, two watches,  Rs. 3665/- were recovered and on the discloser statement of the accused Jasveer Singh, a knife used in the crime was recovered. 3665/- were recovered and on the discloser statement of the accused Jasveer Singh, a knife used in the crime was recovered. The two watches recovered from the possession of the accused persons were put to identification and they were correctly identified by witnesses Karmvir, Vinod Kumar and Naresh Kumar. 7. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet in the Court. The accused persons were summoned in the Court and charges were framed against them. 8. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, 27 witnesses PW-1 Rajendra Prasad, PW-2 Vinod Kumar, PW-3 Karmvir, PW-4 Naresh Kumar, PW-5 Siyaram, PW-6 Durga Prasad, PW-7 Babu Ram, PW-8 Banwari Lal, PW-9 Niranjan Lal, PW-10 Ram Lal, PW-11 Narendra Vats, PW-12 Dr. M.S. Seth, PW-13 Head Constable Nand Ram Singh, PW-14 Mewa Singh, PW-15 Padam Singh, PW-16 Hukum Chand, PW-17 Prem Pal, PW-18 Constable Mahendra Pal Singh, PW-19 Constable Surendra Kumar, PW-20 Constable Lalta Prasad, PW-21 Constable Ramji Mal, PW-22 Om Prakash Saxena, PW-23 Har Dhyan Singh, PW-24 Constable Ram Din Singh, PW-25 Constable Chiranji Lal, PW-26 Inspector Mahak Singh, Investigating Officer and PW-27 Constable Dharshan Dayal were examined. 9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they were put to the evidence recorded against them during the trial to which they denied and they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They were given a chance to produce evidence in their defence. They have produced two witnesses in defence which are DW-1 Satish Chand Sharma, record keeper of police office Rampur and DW-2 Ram Singh Advocate. 10. After hearing the parties, learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and they have been convicted and sentenced as stated above, hence this appeal has been filed on behalf of the accused persons. 11. We have heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned Counsel for the informant and Sri N.K.S. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 12. It is argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that from the entire episode, the time of occurrence is not clear. 12. It is argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that from the entire episode, the time of occurrence is not clear. The case is totally rests upon the circumstantial evidence and since the exact time of the crime is not known, the accused persons cannot be held guilty. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that PW-5 and PW-6, who have allegedly seen the accused persons and the deceased persons going in similar direction one after another on the date of occurrence, were present all through during the investigation but they have disclosed the name of the accused persons very late so their statements are totally tainted and after thought and is creation of the Investigating Officer and cannot be believed. It is further argued that from the entire evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, it is not clear as to how the Investigating Officer came to know about PW-5 and PW-6. They all of sudden appeared and disclosed the name of the accused persons, which is highly doubtful and, as such, the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 cannot be believed. It is further argued that Rajdoot Motorcycle No. USI 5978, which is alleged to have been used by the deceased Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar at the time of the occurrence and which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused Jasveer Singh does not belong to the deceased and in fact this motorcycle belongs to Har Dayal Singh PW-23. Since the said motorcycle does not belong to the deceased, the same cannot be connected with this crime and merely because the said motorcycle and other articles are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused persons, merely on this ground, the conviction of the accused persons cannot be sustained unless other surrounding circumstances are proved against them and the articles recovered are connected with the deceased persons. It is further argued that the knife, which is said to have been recovered on the discloser statement of the accused Jasveer Singh has been recovered from an open place and since the recovery is from the open place, it cannot be attributed to the accused persons and on the basis of this recovery, the accused persons cannot be held guilty. 13. 13. It is further argued that so far as the identification of two watches recovered from the possession of the accused persons is concerned, in fact two watches are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused Jasveer Singh, one was HMT make Zeenat and another was HMT make Sona but the watches of similar make were not mixed with the recovered watches and some other make of watches were mixed. So the entire identification proceedings were improper and not as per the rules as such, on the basis of identification, no inference can be drawn. 14. It is further argued that though the Trial Court has mentioned in the judgment about the report of Serologist regarding the Chhuri and a finding has been recorded that the same was having human blood. But no such report is on record. 15. Learned Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. disputing the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants have argued that the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 had seen the accused persons going behind the deceased persons on the date of occurrence and thereafter they had seen the accused persons bringing the motorcycle of the deceased persons and later on the same motorcycle, cash and other articles of the deceased were recovered from the accused persons to which the accused persons have failed to account for in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. So it is evident that they are the persons responsible for the death of the deceased persons and the entire chain of circumstances is complete. It is further argued that it is a fact that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the knife is not on record but the Trial Court has mentioned in its judgment that the report of Serologist is on record. So it is evident that on the knife human blood was found and even if it is presumed that such report is not there on record, from the other surrounding circumstances the guilt of the accused persons is proved. So it is evident that on the knife human blood was found and even if it is presumed that such report is not there on record, from the other surrounding circumstances the guilt of the accused persons is proved. It is further argued that though similar make of watches were not mixed, as such, merely on this ground, the identification proceedings cannot be held to be defective because it has come in evidence that after the recovery of the watches from the possession of the accused Jasveer Singh, they were not shown to any one and for the first time the said watches were put to identification along with other watches and out of the said watches, the witnesses had correctly identified HMT watches of the deceased. So merely on this ground that similar watches were not mixed, no benefit can be granted to the accused persons. On these grounds, it is argued by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the informant that it is correct that the case rests on circumstantial evidence but the entire chain of circumstance as placed by the prosecution, is fully proved and the learned Trial Court has correctly held the guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 16. From the perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is evident that PW-1 Rajendra Prasad is the informant of this case and he has stated in his statement that he is related to the deceased Moti Ram. About one and half years back in the evening at about 5.15-5.30 the servant of the deceased Mori Ram namely Banwari Lal came to his shop and stated that Moti Ram and his son Suresh Kumar had gone to Rudrapur on their motorcycle but they have not returned. Today i.e. 18.1.1983, some school going boys have seen their dead bodies in a sugarcane field near village Dalaki. The servant further disclosed that on their discloser he had also rushed to the spot to see the deceased persons where he had seen the deceased persons having injuries on their bodies and their motor-cycle was also not there. On his discloser, PW-1 had written the complaint and had submitted in police station Bilaspur. He along with police had reached the scene of occurrence where they had seen the dead bodies of the deceased persons Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar lying in the sugarcane field. On his discloser, PW-1 had written the complaint and had submitted in police station Bilaspur. He along with police had reached the scene of occurrence where they had seen the dead bodies of the deceased persons Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar lying in the sugarcane field. In their hands watches were missing and motorcycle was also not there and on their dead bodies 8-8 and 9-9 injuries were seen. The police had prepared Panchyahnama of both the deceased persons which were signed by him. The police had collected shoes etc. of the deceased persons from the scene of occurrence. The police had also collected bloodstained and plain soil from the scene of occurrence. 17. PW-2 Vinod Kumar is son of the deceased Moti Ram and brother of the deceased Suresh Kumar. It is stated that his father was having motorcycle No. USI 5978. They were doing a business of grains and in this connection, they had gone to Rudrapur for collecting some money which was due there but in the night they did not return. He further stated that he thought that due to delay his father and brother would have stayed at Rudrapur since they were having money. PW-2 further stated that on the next day he had gone to his school which is situated in village Rampura. When he was returning from the school in the evening at about 3.15 P.M. his classmate Satyapal was also along with him. In the way, they entered in a sugar cane field for plucking the sugar cane and there he had seen that the shoes of his brother Suresh Kumar were lying there. At this, he returned to his house and at his residence he had met Banwari and Karmvir. On enquiry, it was disclosed that his father and brother were not returned. He had disclosed that shoes of Suresh Kumar were lying in the sugarcane field. Thereupon the servant Banwari Lal had gone in the sugar cane field where he found that the dead bodies of his father and brother were lying which were having knife injuries. Their motorcycle and watches, which they were wearing, were missing. Then his brother Karmvir sent the servant Banwari Lal to village Dadiya where their relative Rajendra was living. Thereupon the servant Banwari Lal had gone in the sugar cane field where he found that the dead bodies of his father and brother were lying which were having knife injuries. Their motorcycle and watches, which they were wearing, were missing. Then his brother Karmvir sent the servant Banwari Lal to village Dadiya where their relative Rajendra was living. He has further stated that he had come for identification of watches and he had correctly recognized the watches which his father and brother were wearing. He had further identified the shoes of the deceased persons. PW-3 Karmvir and PW-4 Naresh Kumar had also identified the watches of the deceased persons. 18. PW-5 Siyaram has stated in his statement that about quarter past one year back in the evening he along with villager Durga Prasad was sitting on a culvert of canal in the western side of the village. From there, a way passes from Rampura to Bilaspur and Rudrapur. At that time, from the side of Bilaspur one motorcycle came which was being driven by Jasveer Singh and Satnam Singh was pillion rider. This motorcycle went towards Sarai. He was knowing the accused persons Jasveer Singh and Satnam Singh as the accused Jasveer Singh was having a clinic in his village. Sometime back, the accused Satnam Singh was working with him as a Compounder. He has further stated that behind the motorcycle of the accused Jasveer Singh, on one another motorcycle Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar also went towards Sarai. After about 20 minutes, both the motorcycles returned back from the side of Sarai. At that time, one motorcycle was being driven by accused Jasveer Singh and other was being driven by accused Satnam Singh. The motorcycle which was being driven by Satnam Singh that was the motorcycle of the deceased Moti Ram which has passed from that culvert sometime back. Since near the culvert, there was a turn that is why both the accused persons slowed down the speed of the motorcycles then he stopped the accused Jasveer Singh and asked him as to why he was going so hurriedly and he should stop for a cup of tea. On this, the accused Jasveer Singh said that he has to go in a marriage party and they have borrowed this motorcycle from Moti Ram thereafter both the accused persons went towards Rampura. On this, the accused Jasveer Singh said that he has to go in a marriage party and they have borrowed this motorcycle from Moti Ram thereafter both the accused persons went towards Rampura. This witness has further stated that thereafter on Tuesday he had gone out and after returning from there on Thursday he came to know that Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar have been killed. 19. Similar statement has been given by PW-6 Durga Prasad since he was also sitting at the said culvert along with PW-5 Siyaram. So on the basis of discloser statement of the aforesaid witnesses, the name of the accused persons came into light. 20. In this regard, the statement of Investigating Officer Mahak Singh PW-26 is very important. The Investigating Officer PW-26 has stated in his statement that on 20.1.1983 he had received the post-mortem of the deceased persons and on the same day, he had recorded the statements of Prem Pal, Siyaram and Durga Prasad and thereafter he had raided the house of the accused Jasveer Singh but in the house, nothing was found nor the accused Jasveer Singh was present there. On 21.1.1983 and 23.1.1983 also he had made search for accused persons but they were not found. On 31.1.1983, he received an information from the informer that the accused persons Jasveer Singh alias Minna and his compounder Satnam Singh were likely to come from the side of Kichha. This information was noted in G.D. Rapat No. 19 and he had procured Niranjan Lal and Ram Lal as public witness and had gone towards Bengali Colony at the road where there is a road junction and the road is meeting towards Godhi. There they had hidden themselves and were waiting for the accused persons. At about 12.30 on a motorcycle two persons were seen coming then the informer told that these are the accused persons. When the motorcycle reached near triangle, they were apprehended. Then the person who was driving the motorcycle disclosed his name Jasveer Singh and pillion rider disclosed his name Satnam Singh. The motorcycle on which they were coming, was numbered as USI 5978. When a search was made, from the left hand of Jasveer Singh a wrist watch HMT make Sona and from the pocket  Rs. Then the person who was driving the motorcycle disclosed his name Jasveer Singh and pillion rider disclosed his name Satnam Singh. The motorcycle on which they were coming, was numbered as USI 5978. When a search was made, from the left hand of Jasveer Singh a wrist watch HMT make Sona and from the pocket  Rs. 1500/- were recovered whereas from the possession of Satnam Singh, who was pillion rider, one HMT Zeenat make watch and from the pocket  Rs. 2165/- were recovered. It is further stated that the accused Jasveer Singh had given discloser statement and has stated that he can show the place where he has concealed the knife. At his discloser statement, this witness along with other witnesses went at Dhanora turn where on the discloser of the accused Jasveer Singh one knife which was having bloodstained, was recovered under the culvert. He further disclosed that from the same knife he killed the deceased persons Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar. All the articles recovered from the possession of the accused persons were sealed on the spot. 21. So far as the discloser of the names of witness PW-5 and PW-6 is concerned, it was stated by learned Counsel for the appellants that they are procured witnesses and they know nothing. It is not clear as to how the name of the accused persons has come in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer and PW-5 and PW-6 were all through present but they had not disclosed the names of the accused persons to the Investigating Officer. Regarding the incident, learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to the statement of PW-14 Mewa Singh, who is the witness in whose presence the Investigating Officer has collected the bloodstained and plain soil. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that when he had reached the scene of occurrence, a lot of people were collected there and the witnesses Babu Ram, Siya Ram and Durga Prasad were also present there. On this ground, it is argued that since the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 were present all through, they have not disclosed the names of the accused persons, therefore, their statements are doubtful. In this regard, PW-5 has stated that on Tuesday he had gone out and had returned on Thursday then he came to know that Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar have been killed. In this regard, PW-5 has stated that on Tuesday he had gone out and had returned on Thursday then he came to know that Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar have been killed. On return, he disclosed this fact to the brother of the deceased. Likewise, PW-6 Durga Prasad has stated that on the next day of the occurrence he had gone out for some personal work and had returned on Wednesday. In this regard, PW-26 has also stated in his statement that the names of the witnesses Durga Prasad and Siya Ram have come in his knowledge on 19.1.1983 and before that, their names have not come in his knowledge. So merely on this ground, in our view, the statements of PW-5 and PW-6 cannot be doubted as both the witnesses have given a vivid description of the incident. There is consistency in the statements of both the witnesses and during cross-examination also, no such material has come out which could disclose that these witnesses are not telling truth or they are giving their statements due to enmity. 22. So far as the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants that time of death of the deceased persons is not clear, as such, chain of circumstantial evidence is missing is concerned, has no substance. In this regard, in a case law Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju alias Ramesh v. State of A.P. (2001) 6 SCC 205 : 2001 (43) ACC 272 (SC), in paragraphs 22 and 23 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under 22. Learned Counsel contended next that the inability of the prosecution to indicate the time of murder can go to the benefit of the appellant because the appellant alone was once found in the house whereas he was found only at the restaurant in the company of A-2. According to the Counsel if A-2's finger impressions on the almirah is of any use the possibility of A-2 committing the murder all alone cannot be ruled out. 23. We cannot approve of the said contention as a safe method for appreciating a case based on circumstantial evidence. One circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It is the cumulative result of all circumstances which could matter. Hence, we are not inclined to cull out one circumstance from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it. 23. One circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It is the cumulative result of all circumstances which could matter. Hence, we are not inclined to cull out one circumstance from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it. 23. So to our view, merely because the exact time of death of the deceased is not clear, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstantial evidence in this regard is not complete. 24. So far as the recovery of the motorcycle, cash and watches of the deceased persons from the accused persons is concerned, two independent witnesses PW-9 Niranjan Lal and PW-10 Ram Lal have been produced on behalf of the prosecution. They are independent witnesses and no enmity from the accused persons is shown. PW-9 Niranjan Lal has stated that the Investigating Officer had taken him and Ram Lal from Bilaspur. They went in a jeep towards Godi and the jeep was stopped near triangle of Kichha Road and they were waiting for the accused persons. One more person was also along with them. At about 12.30 p.m., one motorcycle came from the side of Kichha, which was apprehended by the police and that motorcycle was having No. USI 5978. The person who was driving the motorcycle has disclosed his name Jasveer Singh and the said person was present in the Court. The pillion rider had disclosed his name Satnam Singh who was also present in the Court. This witness has further disclosed that from the possession of the accused Jasveer Singh one HMT Sona watch and  Rs. 1500/- were recovered. Likewise, from the possession of the accused Satnam  Rs. 2165/- and one watch were recovered. This witness has further stated that along with accused persons they had come to Dhanora turm and at the pointing out of the accused Jasveer Singh underneath a culvert one knife, which was hidden in the soil, was recovered. Similar statement has been given by PW-10 Ram Lal. So the evidence of these two witnesses doubtlessly proves the recovery of the articles from the possession of the accused persons. 25. Similar statement has been given by PW-10 Ram Lal. So the evidence of these two witnesses doubtlessly proves the recovery of the articles from the possession of the accused persons. 25. So far as the ownership of the motorcycle is concerned, it is argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that since the motorcycle was not registered in the name of the deceased persons, it cannot be said that the said motorcycle belongs to the deceased persons and since the motorcycle does not belong to the deceased persons, in no way it could be connected with the crime. In this regard, it is evident that the original owner of the motorcycle was one PW-23 Har Dhyan Singh, who has stated in his statement that Rajdoot motorcycle USI 5978 belongs to him and on 15.5.1981 he had sold the said motorcycle to one Hukum Chand, resident of Bilaspur for a sum of  Rs. 6,200/-. He had signed the sale letter. 26. Hukum Chand had been produced as PW-16 in this case, who has stated that in May, 1981, he had purchased the said motorcycle from Har Dhyan Singh and in July, 1982, he had sold the said motorcycle to Moti Ram for a sum of  Rs. 5,200/- and had given the sale letter signed by Har Dhyan Singh directly to Moti Ram but he did not know that Moti Ram had got transferred the said motorcycle in his name or not. In the F.I.R. itself, it is mentioned that the deceased was having the possession of the said motorcycle at the time of occurrence and from the said motorcycle they had gone to Rudrapur. So from the entire material on record, it is fully established that at the time of occurrence, Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar were having the possession of the said motorcycle and it is also proved that on 31.1.1983 the said motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the accused persons Jasveer Singh and Satnam Singh to which they failed to account for as to how it came in their possession. So merely because the said motorcycle was not registered in the name of the deceased Moti Ram or Suresh Kumar, it cannot be said that on the date of occurrence they were not in possession of the said motorcycle and it was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. 27. So merely because the said motorcycle was not registered in the name of the deceased Moti Ram or Suresh Kumar, it cannot be said that on the date of occurrence they were not in possession of the said motorcycle and it was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. 27. So far as recovery of money from the possession of both the accused persons is concerned, it is argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that it is not clear as to whether the said money, which has been recovered from the possession of the accused persons, actually belongs to the deceased or not. In this regard, from the side of the prosecution, PW-17 Prem Pal has been produced, who has stated in his statement that he is doing grain business in Rudrapur Mandi. He knows the deceased Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar. He has further stated that on 17.1.1983 Moti Ram and Suresh Kumar had come to him to collect the money for paddy. He had to pay them a sum of Rs. 21,700/- and out of which he had paid them a sum of  Rs. 6,900/- and at about 4.00 p.m. they had left his shop from a motorcycle and they had kept the money in the Dikki of their motorcycle. Later on it was disclosed that they have been murdered. From the statement of this witness, it is clear that on 17.1.1983 at least the deceased were having  Rs. 6,900/- in their possession. 28. So far as the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants that merely on the recovery of certain articles, the guilt of the accused persons cannot be proved is concerned, in our view, this argument has no substance because if the accused persons have failed to account for the said recovery the chain of circumstances is complete against them. In this regard, in the case of Ezhil and others v. State of T.N. (2002) 9 SCC 189 : 2002 (45) ACC 176 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13 has held as under ..........The accused have not been able to properly or reasonably explain as to the legitimacy or origin of their possession of the articles carried by the deceased when he arrived from abroad at the airport at Chennai. In such circumstances, since the facts relating to the same being especially within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, the legislature engrafted a special rule in section 106 of the Evidence Act, to meet certain exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible but disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The appellants in this case have miserably failed to explain their lawful possession of those articles with them that really belonged to and were in the possession of the deceased when he landed at the airport at Chennai. Consequently, it was legitimate for the Courts below, on the facts and circumstances of this case, to draw the presumption not only of the fact that they were in possession of the stolen articles after committing robbery but also committed the murder of the deceased, keeping in view the proximity of time within which the act of murder was supposed to have been committed and body found and the articles recovered from the possession of the accused. 29. Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka (2007) 9 SCC 315 : 2007 (54) AIC 217 (SC). 30. So, to our view, there is close proximity between the time of occurrence and recovery and since the accused persons have failed to prove the recovery which belongs to the deceased persons, which clearly indicates towards the quilt of the accused persons. 31. So far as the discloser statement of the accused Jasveer Singh regarding recovery of knife is concerned, the Investigating Officer PW-26 has clearly stated in his statement that the accused Jasveer Singh has given discloser statement that he had hidden the knife underneath the culvert and he can get it recovered and at his pointing out knife was recovered. The statement of PW-26 is supported with the statement of PW-9 Niranjan Lal and PW-10 Ram Lal. The statement of PW-26 is supported with the statement of PW-9 Niranjan Lal and PW-10 Ram Lal. In this regard, in the case of Sanjay alias Kaka v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001) 3 SCC 190 : 2001 (42) ACC 533 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made distinction to the statement which is covered by section 27 of the Evidence Act and other portion which is hit by sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment are quoted below 24. In this case after the arrest of Sanjay appellant, the extra-judicial confession made by him to PW 5 and recording the statement of PW 5 the investigating officer apprehended the other accused persons. In his interrogation Vinod appellant made a confessional statement, a major portion of which is inadmissible in evidence being hit by sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act. However, the relevant portion which was used for recovery of the stolen property is as under: I got gold jewellery and watches which are lying at my house at Shakarpur. I can point out the same and get them recovered. Both shirts are lying at my house, one pant at the residence of my friend at Madipur, and I am wearing the pant which I washed (after commission of the offence). I can get recovered the Dagger and Katta from my house at Shakarpur and also above mentioned things. 25. In his disclosure statement accused Mohabat Ali had stated: I got gold jewellery watches, cameras and clothes which are lying at my home. The revolver and kirpan used in the commission of the offence are also lying in my house. I can recovered the (looted) property and the weapon of offence from my house at Mangolpuri. I can also get arrested Ramkishan, the seller of the revolver. 26. The relevant portion of statement of accused Nawabuddin is as under: I took jewellery and watches of my and Sanjay's share to my residence. Sanjay dropped me on scooter. I can get recovered the (looted) property from my residence. 27. I can also get arrested Ramkishan, the seller of the revolver. 26. The relevant portion of statement of accused Nawabuddin is as under: I took jewellery and watches of my and Sanjay's share to my residence. Sanjay dropped me on scooter. I can get recovered the (looted) property from my residence. 27. Raising objections to the words "after commission of the offence" appearing in the disclosure statement of Vinod and "looted property" in the statement of Nawabuddin, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the whole of the statement was hit by sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act and section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are not inclined to accept such a general statement. Even if the objectionable words (bracketed above) are deleted, the appellants cannot be conferred with any benefit which would entitle them to acquittal. It is not disputed that consequent upon the disclosure statements made, the articles mentioned therein were actually recovered at their instance from the place where such articles had been hidden by them. The mere use of the words "looted property" in relation to the articles seized which were found to have been taken away after the commission of the crime of murder and robbery would not change the nature of the statement. The words do not implicate the accused with the commission of the crime but refer only to the nature of the property hidden by them which were ultimately recovered consequent upon their disclosure statements. Hypertechnical approach, as projected by the defence Counsel, would defeat the ends of justice and have disastrous effect. The property recovered consequent upon the making of the disclosure statements has been proved to be the property of the deceased, stolen after the commission of the offence of robbery and murder. 32. Hypertechnical approach, as projected by the defence Counsel, would defeat the ends of justice and have disastrous effect. The property recovered consequent upon the making of the disclosure statements has been proved to be the property of the deceased, stolen after the commission of the offence of robbery and murder. 32. So far as the recovery from the open place is concerned, it is argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the place from where the knife was recovered, was an open place where the common people were going and coming, so it cannot be said that the recovery is covered with section 27 of the Evidence Act but to our view, the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants has no substance because PW-9 Niranjan Lal has stated in his statement that the said knife was hidden underneath the culvert which was recovered at the pointing out of the accused Jasveer Singh. So it cannot be said that the said recovery was made from the open place. In this regard, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh 1999 SCC (Cri.) 539 : 1999 (38) ACC 550 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under 26. There is nothing in section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others. It would vitiate the evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For Example, if the article is buried on the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. Until such article is disinterred its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others. 27. It is now well settled that the discovery of fact referred to in section 27 of the Evidence Act is not the object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which the object is recovered and the knowledge of the accused as to it. (Pulikuri Kottaya) AIR 1947 PC 67 . The said ratio has received unreserved approval of this Court in successive decisions. (Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra 1970 (7) ACC 163 (SC), K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1788 , Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330 : 1983 (20) ACC 41 (Sum.) (SC), Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P. (1995) 4 SCC 430 , State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh (1997) 10 SCC 675 . 33. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar 2001 (Suppl.) ACC 729 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 16 . 34. So, from the said case law, it is evident that since the knife was recovered at the pointing out of the accused Jasveer Singh, which was hidden underneath the culvert in the earth, so it cannot be said that the recovery was made from the open place. If the knife is tallied with the injuries sustained by the deceased persons, it is evident from the perusal of the post-mortem examination report that the deceased Moti Ram had sustained 7 injuries on his body which all were incised wounds. Likewise, the deceased Suresh Kumar had sustained total 10 injuries and they were also incised wounds and margins were clean cut. So it is evident that both the deceased had sustained incised wounds which may be inflicted by sharp edged weapon and which can be caused by knife. Likewise, the deceased Suresh Kumar had sustained total 10 injuries and they were also incised wounds and margins were clean cut. So it is evident that both the deceased had sustained incised wounds which may be inflicted by sharp edged weapon and which can be caused by knife. So the entire recovery of knife, watches, motorcycle and cash cannot be doubted which is a strong circumstance in the present case to which the accused persons have failed to account for. Further to our view, if the Serologist report as mentioned in the judgment of the Trial Court is not on record, will not make any dent in the prosecution case, as the other surrounding circumstances have been proved against the accused persons. 35. Lastly, it was argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the accused persons were arrested from their houses and in this regard, the father of the accused Satnam Singh had given an application to S.P., Rampur, which was sent through UPC on 30.1.1983. In this regard, DW-1 Satish Chand Sharma has been produced who has stated in his statement that he had brought a register with him, which is for the period 1980 to 1986 and in the year 1983 at serial No. 23 an application received from Harbansh Singh is mentioned but it has been weeded out on 8.2.1984. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the aforesaid register has a lot of cuttings and even the date of such application is not mentioned in that register and copy of the application is also not there. So no positive inference can be drawn from the statement of DW-1 so far as the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants is concerned. DW-2 Ram Singh Advocate has stated that on 29.1.1983, the father of Satnam Singh had come to him for drafting an application which was to be sent to the S.P., Rampur. This application was drafted by him and was sent on 30.1.1983 to S.P. through UPC which is Ext. Kha-1 on the record. Since the original application which was sent to S.P., Rampur has been weeded out, it cannot be inferred as to what type of application was sent to S.P. Rampur. This application was drafted by him and was sent on 30.1.1983 to S.P. through UPC which is Ext. Kha-1 on the record. Since the original application which was sent to S.P., Rampur has been weeded out, it cannot be inferred as to what type of application was sent to S.P. Rampur. So merely on the statements of DW-1 and DW-2 no inference can be drawn in favour of the accused persons, particularly when the chain of circumstances has been completed which indicates towards the guilt of the accused persons and the statement of both these witnesses has rightly been disbelieved by learned Trial Court. 36. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the entire chain of circumstances against the accused persons. From the accused persons the looted articles have been recovered and at the pointing out of the accused Jasveer Singh, the weapon used in the crime has also been recovered. A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court shows that the Trial Court has very meticulously and deeply considered all aspects of the matter and the judgment of the Trial Court is fully supported with the material on record. The learned Counsel for the appellants has failed to show any such material defect or irregularity in the judgment of the Trial Court which may warrant interference in this appellate jurisdiction and to our view, this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 37. In view of the above, the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 12.3.1986 is upheld. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused persons Jasveer Singh and Satnam Singh is hereby confirmed. The appeal having no force is dismissed. The accused persons Jasveer Singh and Satnam Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender immediately before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur who shall take them in custody and be sent to jail for serving out the remaining sentence imposed upon them. In case they fail to surrender, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur shall take coercive action against them in this regard. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower Court record be sent back forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Rampur for compliance.