JUDGMENT Per Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. This is a reference under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence as the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No. 84/2011 vide its judgment dated 27.02.2013 has convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellants as under:- Under Section 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 Under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 RI for 2 years each and fine of Rs.500/-with usual default stipulation RI for 3 years each and fine of Rs.500/-with usual default stipulation RI for 3 years each and fine of Rs.500/-with usual default stipulation 2. Criminal Appeal No.374/2013 has been preferred by appellants Govind Chandra, Omprakash Chandra & Ganesh Chandra challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur as mentioned above. Since the criminal reference and criminal appeal arise out of same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The appellants have been convicted for committing murders of deceased Tikaram Chandra, Mithila & Fagulal Chandra by causing explosion by means of explosive substance at about 6.30 am on 19.4.2010. While deceased Mithila and Fagulal Chandra died on their way to the hospital on the date of the incident itself, deceased Tikaram Chandra died in course of treatment on 21.4.2010. 4. Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) was lodged by PW-1 Buddheshwar Chandra at 8.30 am on the date of the incident to the effect that in the morning he had gone to collect Mahua flowers. At 6.45 am he was coming back from the agricultural field. When he reached the village colony, Baldev Chandra informed that explosion has taken place in the house of the informant’s nephew and fire has broken out in the house. The informant went to the house of Tikaram Chandra and saw that the villagers were dousing the fire and Tikaram, his wife Mithila and Fagulal have sustained grievous burn injuries. When they were taken to the hospital, Mithila died on way, and Tikaram & Fagulal have been referred to and taken to CIMS, Bilaspur. 5. Merg intimation concerning the death of Tikaram was lodged vide Ex.-P/13 & P/14. Merg intimation concerning the death of Fagulal was lodged by Surit Ram (PW-2) vide Ex.-P/42 at 10.25 am on 19.4.2010. 6. When they were taken to the hospital, Mithila died on way, and Tikaram & Fagulal have been referred to and taken to CIMS, Bilaspur. 5. Merg intimation concerning the death of Tikaram was lodged vide Ex.-P/13 & P/14. Merg intimation concerning the death of Fagulal was lodged by Surit Ram (PW-2) vide Ex.-P/42 at 10.25 am on 19.4.2010. 6. Dead body inquest of deceased Tikaram was conducted vide Ex.-P/16 whereas dead body inquest of deceased Mithila was conducted vide Ex.-P/20. The dead body inquest of deceased Fagulal was conducted vide Ex.-P/21. The postmortem on the dead body of deceased Mithila was conducted on 19.4.2010 by Dr. KK Gandharwa and postmortem report (Ex.-P/6) was submitted opining that the death is caused due to extensive burn 98%. The postmortem on the dead body of deceased Fagulal was conduced by Dr. KK Gandharva and the postmortem report (Ex.-P/7) was submitted opining that the death is caused due to extensive burn injuries 95%. The postmortem on the dead body of deceased Tikaram was conducted by PW-18 Dr. A. Tiwari and the postmortem report (Ex.-P/17) was submitted opining that the death is on account of cardio respiratory failure due to shock as a result of multiple injuries. 7. After completing merg enquiry, the FIR was registered on 27.4.2010 by the Police Inspector LC Mohale against unknown persons stating that during enquiry of merg intimation, he recorded statements of the witnesses, conducted dead body inquest and obtained postmortem reports, from which the deaths of the deceased persons were found to have occurred on account of extensive burn injuries. The witnesses informed the police that near about 4 pm on 18.4.2010 2 unknown persons came to the house of Tikaram Chandra and delivered one suitcase kept in plastic bag saying that it contains parts of tubewell and in the next morning, explosion has taken place. 8. During investigation, the appellants were taken into custody. Terricot shirt and Lungi of Tikaram was recovered vide Ex.-P/2. 8. During investigation, the appellants were taken into custody. Terricot shirt and Lungi of Tikaram was recovered vide Ex.-P/2. One plastic bag, one piece of plastic suitcase together with black/Khakhi coloured piece of cloth (army cloth); one piece of iron strip containing front lock of suitcase measuring about 1 ft; one partially burnt jute bag (Bardana), burnt clothes like Sari, Pant etc., burnt debris of about 2 kg and 3 kg of soil from the area where explosion took place inside the house of Tikaram were recovered from the place of occurrence vide Ex.-P/3. The plasters of different walls of the house of Tikaram were recovered vide Ex.-P/4. One yellow coloured partially burnt underwear with cloth strip used for tying the underwear; one partially burnt Sando baniyan; one partially burnt full pant; one partially burnt shirt and one aluminium box having 25 divisions having brown colured glass like substance were recovered upon production by Sudarshan Chandra (PW-5) vide Ex.-P/5. The crime detail form along with spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P/10. Another spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P/11. 9. The accused persons were put to identification parade and memo of identification was prepared vide Ex.-P/19. They were correctly identified by Sudarshan Chandra (PW-5). 10.Memorandum statement of accused Govind Chandra was recorded vide Ex.-P/23 which led to recovery of one bunch of sewing machine thread; one bunch of thick thread; one nail (khila), one Nokia mobile bearing SIM No.98274-87924 and one old Atlas cycle vide Ex.-P/24. One bright red coloured wrapper of fireworks and the soil of the place where Govind allegedly manufactured the bombs were recovered from Govind Chandra’s house vide Ex.-P/25. 11. Memorandum statement of Om Prakash was recorded vide Ex.-P/26 which led to recovery of one Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle; one towel, one mobile set and one SIM bearing No.78281-73217 from his possession. 12. Memorandum statement of accused Ganesh Chandra was recorded vide Ex.-P/28 which led to recovery of one towel from his possession. 13. One inquest was prepared in the Police Station vide Ex.-P/30 wherein appellant Govind Chandra demonstrated the process of preparing bombs and how the suitcase bomb would ignite automatically on opening the suitcase. 14. One suitcase was recovered from the shop keeper Taj Mohammed of Sarangarh vide Ex.-P/31 whereas ‘Top Tiger’ firework (bomb), explosive licence, fireworks licence etc. 13. One inquest was prepared in the Police Station vide Ex.-P/30 wherein appellant Govind Chandra demonstrated the process of preparing bombs and how the suitcase bomb would ignite automatically on opening the suitcase. 14. One suitcase was recovered from the shop keeper Taj Mohammed of Sarangarh vide Ex.-P/31 whereas ‘Top Tiger’ firework (bomb), explosive licence, fireworks licence etc. were recovered from Rajesh Agrawal of Agrawal General Store wherefrom accused Govind allegedly purchased the fireworks (bomb). 15. The call details and the location of mobile towers of the mobile number possessed and used by the accused persons were sought for vide Ex.-P/46. The FSL report regarding quality and variety of explosive substance in the articles recovered from the house of the deceased persons and the class of explosives were submitted vide Ex.-P/53/(C-1). 16. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for offences under Sections 302 or 302/34 (three counts) IPC, Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, Section 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884, Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for committing these offences. 17. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses whereas the appellants, after abjuring the guilt, examined 2 defence witnesses namely, DW-1 Mohan Lal and DW-2 Ku. Sunanda Dhenge. The defence exhibited copy of the expert opinion rendered by DW-2 Ku. Sunanda Dhenge vide Ex.-D/8. 18. The trial Court having found that the prosecution has proved its case, it has convicted the appellants and sentenced them with death penalty. 19. The question falling for determination is – whether the death sentence awarded to the appellants is to be confirmed? It is also to be determined as to whether the appellants have rightly been convicted for committing murders of Tikaram, Mithila and Fagulal and whether their conviction under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, Section 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is sustainable? 20. PW-1 Buddheshwar is the first informant. He is the resident of the same village. He has proved merg intimation Ex.-P/1 and other documents Ex.-P/2 to Ex.-P/12. He reached the place of occurrence within half an hour. He has denied that Tikaram used to sell kerosene oil in his grocery shop. 20. PW-1 Buddheshwar is the first informant. He is the resident of the same village. He has proved merg intimation Ex.-P/1 and other documents Ex.-P/2 to Ex.-P/12. He reached the place of occurrence within half an hour. He has denied that Tikaram used to sell kerosene oil in his grocery shop. He also says that because of explosion clay tiled roof of the house of Tikaram was completely burnt and the walls had suffered cracks. 21. PW-2 Surit Ram is the father of deceased Fagulal. He is the cow herd and had gone to village Nallah where he was informed by his other son Faglal that Fagulal has suffered burn injuries. He rushed to the house of Tikaram and witnessed that the house was burning. According to him, Mithila died at Bilaigarh and Fagulal died near Masturi. He also says that pieces of clothes and ropes were recovered by the police from the dead body of Fagulal. He has denied that Tikaram used to sell fireworks and was also hunting pigs. 22. PW-3 Birendra Kumar had brought merg intimation lodged at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur regarding the death of Tikaram to the Police Station Bilaigarh. 23. PW-4 Gopal Dubey is a practicing advocate. Deceased Tikaram and his wife Mithila had come to his house one day prior to the incident for attending 6th day ceremony of the newly born baby (Chhati Karyakram). Tikaram and his wife went back to their village at 11 pm. Next day, he received information in the morning from one Dhanesh Sahu that a bomb explosion has taken place in the house of Tikaram and a doctor is to be arranged for their treatment. This witness says that Tikaram's wife lost election of Sarpanch; after 15 days of the election, appellant Govind came to his house and informed that because of Tikaram he has been ostracized, therefore, he should convince Tikaram. After 2-3 days, this witness went to village Jogidipa and tried to convince Baldev Chandra, deceased Tikaram and 2 other persons of the village that because of election dispute one should not be ostracized. He further says that he was counsel for Tikaram Chandra in the land dispute between him and appellant Govind Chandra. This witness is the member of Madhav Gau Sewa Samiti, Dhansir, of which deceased Tikaram was the president. He further says that he was counsel for Tikaram Chandra in the land dispute between him and appellant Govind Chandra. This witness is the member of Madhav Gau Sewa Samiti, Dhansir, of which deceased Tikaram was the president. In cross examination, he says that the land dispute between Tikaram and Govind was concerning a WILL and the said matter has already been compromised. 24. PW-5 Sudarshan is the younger brother of deceased Tikaram. At about 3-4 pm in the afternoon of 18.4.2010, he had gone towards the tubewell for removing cows and at that time, he had seen appellant Govind on the embankment of the village tank. He was residing with deceased Tikaram in one premises but had separate kitchens. When he came back to the house, he had seen appellants Omprakash and Ganesh, who had come to the residence of Tikaram along with some articles in a bag (bori). He further says that when he reached the house, he witnessed that Omprakash was standing near the motorcycle and Ganesh was just coming out after leaving the bag in the house of Tikaram. At that time, Fagulal was standing with Ganesh. Since Ganesh was going out, deceased Fagulal followed him to move out of the house of Tikaram. Fagulal informed to this witness that these persons (Omprakash and Ganesh) are asking for drinking water and thereafter this witness provided drinking water to Ganesh. Fagulal handed over one piece of paper to this witness with an instruction that the paper is to be handed over to Tikaram when he returns and if any article is found short, he may call on the mobile number written on the paper. He also informed that the piece of paper has been handed over by appellant Ganesh and according to Ganesh, the bag contains articles/spares of borewell. When this witness asked Fagulal as to where are the pipes of the borewell, he said that they have asked to enquire on phone. At this time, Omprakash started motorcycle and Ganesh was sitting a pillion rider. Ganesh saw towards the village tank and Omprakash smiled and they went out. Tikaram came back from Bilaigarh in the night. When this witness asked Fagulal as to where are the pipes of the borewell, he said that they have asked to enquire on phone. At this time, Omprakash started motorcycle and Ganesh was sitting a pillion rider. Ganesh saw towards the village tank and Omprakash smiled and they went out. Tikaram came back from Bilaigarh in the night. In the morning, he heard the sound of explosion when he had gone to the agricultural field by name 'Chuikhacha Khar' and he came back rushing towards his house and witnessed that the house is burning and the deceased persons had suffered burn injuries; the villagers were trying to douse the fire. Tikaram was sent to Bilaigarh in one vehicle whereas Mithila and Fagulal were sent in another vehicle. Mithila died at Bilaigarh whereas Fagulal died at Masturi on way to Bilaspur. Tikaram also succumbed to burn injuries at CIMS, Bilaspur on 21.4.2010. He has proved the dead body inquest of Tikaram vide Ex.-P/16, seizure memo from the place of occurrence vide Ex.-P/5, spot map (Ex.-P/11) and the inquest of the place of occurrence (Ex.-P/12). He has also proved identification memo Ex.-P/19. 25. In para-16 of cross-examination, a contradiction has been pointed out that in his case diary statement, he had not stated that when he had gone towards borewell, he had seen Govind on the date of the incident. However, on perusal of his case diary statement (Ex.-D/2), it would appear that in the last paragraph of his case diary statement, he has stated that on the date of the incident, when both the accused had come to the house of Tikaram for leaving the articles, he had seen Govind Chandra standing on the embankment of the village tank near his house. Thus, there is no contradiction in the statement of this witness insofar as this aspect is concerned. He has denied the suggestion that the policemen had informed him that he has to identify Omprakash and Ganesh as the persons who had come to his house. He has denied the suggestion that Tikaram used to sell fireworks in his grocery shop. He has also denied the suggestion that he, Tikaram and one Baldev used to hunt wild pigs and for that Tikaram used to keep bombs in his house. 26. PW-6 Roop Kunwar is the mother of Tikaram. He has denied the suggestion that Tikaram used to sell fireworks in his grocery shop. He has also denied the suggestion that he, Tikaram and one Baldev used to hunt wild pigs and for that Tikaram used to keep bombs in his house. 26. PW-6 Roop Kunwar is the mother of Tikaram. She derives information of delivery of one bag by 2 persons containing spares of borewell from Babulal, but has not seen those persons. She says that at the time when the articles were delivered in the house of Tikaram, she had gone to Bilaigarh and at the time when the bomb exploded, she had gone to collect Mahua. She has denied the suggestion that Tikaram used to store diesel and kerosene oil as he was driving tractor of his son-in-law. 27. PW-7 Baldev is the cousin of appellant Govind. He reached the place of incident immediately after the bomb explosion. He was also involved in arranging vehicles for sending the deceased persons to the hospital. He is a witness to the dead body inquest Ex.-P/20 & P/21. He and one Rajkumar received the dead body on Supurdnama. He has proved seizure memos Ex.-P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/5. He also denies that Tikaram used to hunt wild pigs and for that he used to manufacture explosive substances and bombs. 28. PW-8 Pratap is the cousin of appellant Omprakash whereas appellant Govind Chandra is his brother-in-law (thtk). The mobile number 78281-73217 used by Omprakash to make conversation with Govind Chandra is in the name of this witness. He has been declared hostile. 29. PW-9 Purshottam has stated that his wife Mela Bai contested and was declared elected in the election of Sarpanch defeating deceased Mithila, wife of deceased Tikaram, in the said election. This witness belongs to Kewat caste whereas the deceased and appellant Govind belong to Chandra caste. He has supported the statement made by PW-4 Gopal Dubey by stating that Govind Chandra had complained to him that Tikaram accuses Govind that his wife (Mithila) lost election because of Govind and for that Tikaram has ostracized him in the village. This witness suggested Govind Chandra to convene a Panchayat meeting in which a compromise can be sorted out. 30. PW-10 Dhanesh Kumar is the Sarpanch of village Dhansir. This witness suggested Govind Chandra to convene a Panchayat meeting in which a compromise can be sorted out. 30. PW-10 Dhanesh Kumar is the Sarpanch of village Dhansir. He also speaks about Govind making complaint to him that because of election dispute Tikaram accuses him that his wife Mithila lost election on account of Govind. This witness has proved the memorandum statement of Govind Ex.-P/23 and the seizure memos Ex.-P/24 & P/25. He has also proved memorandum statement of Omprakash vide Ex.-P/26 and recoveries made from him vide Ex.-P/27. He has also proved memorandum statement of Ganesh vide Ex.-P/28 and the seizure of articles made from Ganesh vide Ex.-P/29. This witness has also proved demonstration inquest (Ex.-P/30) in which Govind demonstrated in the Police Station as to how the bomb fitted in a suitcase can be ignited automatically when the suitcase is opened. He has also proved seizure memo Ex.-P/31 & P/32 and the arrest memo Ex.-P/33 to P/35. He reached the place of occurrence after 15 minutes when he received information about the bomb explosion from PW-7 Baldev. 31. PW-11 Awadhram is the resident of village Jogideepa. He reached the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of bomb explosion. 32. PW-12 Samaymati is the wife of deceased Fagulal. She says that her house is adjoining to the house of deceased Tikaram and at the time of the incident her husband Fagulal had gone to the house of Tikaram for milking cows. Fagulal had informed this witness that spares of borewell have been delivered in the house of Tikaram. 33. PW-13 Taj Mohammed is a witness from whose shop the suitcase was purchased, which was later on used to prepare demonstration inquest (Ex.-P/30). This witness has turned hostile. 34. PW-14 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal is the owner of General Goods Store and Fireworks Shop at Sarangarh. Appellant Govind had allegedly purchased the bombs from his shop. This witness has turned hostile. 35. PW-15 PS Sen has conducted some part of investigation. 36. PW-16 Pramod Das is the resident of village Jogideepa. He had also seen Govind Chandra going towards the tank a day prior to the incident. In cross-examination, he has categorically denied the suggestion that he had not seen Govind at the village tank a day prior to the incident. 37. PW-15 PS Sen has conducted some part of investigation. 36. PW-16 Pramod Das is the resident of village Jogideepa. He had also seen Govind Chandra going towards the tank a day prior to the incident. In cross-examination, he has categorically denied the suggestion that he had not seen Govind at the village tank a day prior to the incident. 37. PW-17 Tikaram Jaiswal has stated that about 2 years back Govind had informed him that Tikaram has grabbed 6 acres of land by preparing forged WILL and Tikaram has ostracized him. He has further stated that PW-4 Gopal Dubey, Advocate, wanted to effect compromise but when it did not materialize, he had exploded the bomb in the house of Tikaram Chandra. He has proved memorandum statement of Govind vide Ex.-P/23, recovery memos Ex.-P/24, P/25; memorandum statement of Omprakash vide Ex.-P/26 and the seizure of articles made from him vide Ex.-P/27. He has also proved memorandum statement of Ganesh vide Ex.-P/28 and the recoveries made from him vide Ex.-P/29. 38. PW-18 Dr. A. Tiwari has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Tikaram. He has proved the postmortem report (Ex.-P/17). He has found the following injuries on the person of deceased Tikaram:- “whole body burn except left upper thigh including left flank, left side of tunk from midline both sole, superficial to deep burn, about 75% burn. Multiple pallet injuries on both legs, average size 1 x 0.5 cm with 0.5 x 0.5 cm in size with multiple petechial haemorrhage. Multiple small pallets present in side of the wounds. Extradural haematoma along with 150 ml blood deposition in the base of brain. All burn & other injuries are antemortem in nature and may be caused by explosion.” 39. PW-19 Shiv Singh Baxal is the Head Constable. He has proved information received from the hospital regarding death of Tikaram vide Ex.-P/41 and the merg intimation (Ex.-P/13). 40. PW-20 Lakhan Das Mahant is the Patwari, who has prepared the site map (Ex.-P/11) and the inquest of the place of occurrence Ex.-P/12. 41.PW-21 Ghanshyam is a witness to the seizure memos (Ex.-P/31 & P/32). He has turned hostile. 42. PW-22 Arun Kumar Sharma has conducted identification of the accused persons and has proved identification memo (Ex.-P/19). 43. PW-23 Dr. Narayan Singh has proved the postmortem report of Mithila, conducted by Dr. 41.PW-21 Ghanshyam is a witness to the seizure memos (Ex.-P/31 & P/32). He has turned hostile. 42. PW-22 Arun Kumar Sharma has conducted identification of the accused persons and has proved identification memo (Ex.-P/19). 43. PW-23 Dr. Narayan Singh has proved the postmortem report of Mithila, conducted by Dr. KK Gandharva vide Ex.-P/6, as also the postmortem report of deceased Fagulal vide Ex.-P/7. The following injuries were found on the persons of Mithila and Fagulal:- Injuries found on the body of Mithila Bai “both eyes are burnt and closed. Skins are avulsioned of the whole body, only buttock is not burnt. 4Th degree burn is found in elbow joint right hand, hair of sole of both foot slightly burnt. About 98% burn.” Injuries found on the body of Fagulal “eyes closed with burn of eyeball. Multiple fracture is found in the ankle joint of right leg. Hair and sole of foot slightly burn, mouth is open. Skin avulsion found in whole of the body. Burning is about 95%.” 44. PW-24 PR Dahriya has proved the merg intimation Ex.-P/1 and P/42. 45. PW-25 Ganesh Prasad Sharma is the Head Constable, who has proved Ex.-P/15, P/16, P/43 & P/44. 46. PW-26 BR Verma has proved Ex.-P/45 by which the District Magistrate has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused persons under the Explosive Substance Act and Explosive Act. 47. PW-27 Hemant Singh has proved the request Ex.-P/46 by which permission was sought from SP, Crime Branch, Raipur for obtaining call details of different mobile numbers. 48. PW-28 Lal Chand Mohle has conducted major part of investigation. 49. Defence witness No.1 Mohar Lal has stated that Tikaram used to sell fireworks during 'Dipawali' festival and he also used to keep diesel for the tractor of his son-in-law. 50. Defence witness No.2 Ku. Sunanda Dhenge has proved the expert opinion accorded by her vide Ex.-D/8. She has tried to prove that Tikaram had sustained burn injuries from pallets whereas pallets are not found in Top Tiger bombs which were allegedly used by appellant Govind for preparing the bombs which caused the explosion. 50. Defence witness No.2 Ku. Sunanda Dhenge has proved the expert opinion accorded by her vide Ex.-D/8. She has tried to prove that Tikaram had sustained burn injuries from pallets whereas pallets are not found in Top Tiger bombs which were allegedly used by appellant Govind for preparing the bombs which caused the explosion. She has also stated that if 80 pieces of Top Tiger bombs are joined together and exploded, it may not create such intensity of explosion which has taken place in the present case because the bomb would explode one after another and when first or second bomb would explode, the other bombs would get separated from each other. She has also stated that ammonium nitrate found in the FSL report is not used in Indian Top Tiger Bombs. However, in cross-examination, she has admitted that ammonium nitrate is highly explosive substance. She admits that she has not physically examined the Top Tiger bomb. 51. By order dated 6.8.2013, this Court allowed IA No.1/2013, filed by the State under Section 367 read with Section 391 CrPC in the following manner:- “It is apparent that though call details are on record, they could not be exhibited as required under the law. Reference of these call details has been given by the investigating officer (PW-28) in his Court statement and likewise the trial Judge has also considered the same. Section 367 Cr.P.C. empowers this Court to direct for further enquiry and issuing a direction to the prosecution to adduce additional evidence having a bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the convicted person. Considering all the aspects of the case, in our opinion, additional evidence regarding mobile calls is necessary. In view of the above, we allow IA No.01/13 filed under Section 367 read with Section 391 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution is permitted to file the documents which are annexed with this application dated 14.7.2013. Prosecution is permitted to examine Shri Anil Verma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Telecom Ltd. Parties shall appear before the Sessions Judge, Raipur on 26th August, 2013 and thereafter the Sessions Judge may record the evidence or transfer the case to any other Additional Sessions Judge. Prosecution is permitted to examine Shri Anil Verma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Telecom Ltd. Parties shall appear before the Sessions Judge, Raipur on 26th August, 2013 and thereafter the Sessions Judge may record the evidence or transfer the case to any other Additional Sessions Judge. Accused persons will also be present on that day before the concerned Court to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution and thereafter statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. be recorded and the accused will be permitted to adduce the documentary or any other evidence. Entire proceedings be concluded within a period of one month, if possible, and thereafter the file be sent back to the High Court for decision.” 52. Accordingly, the records were sent to the concerned trial Court for recording additional evidence/enquiry and the same was transmitted to this Court. Vide order passed on the administrative side on 9.12.2013, the matter was directed to be listed before regular Bench. Additional evidence 53. PW-28 Lal Chand Mohle stated in para-25 of his additional evidence that in course of investigation, he did not record the statement of Shri Anil Verma, Nodal Officer of the Reliance Communications Limited for the State of Chhattisgarh. He has stated on his own that he had obtained call details from the Reliance Company through Additional SP, Crime Branch, Raipur. When he was specifically asked as to whether the call details of cell phone number/SIM number 98274-87924 and 78281-73217 were provided to him by Shri Anil Verma, this witness answered that the same was provided to him by the Additional SP, Crime Branch, Raipur. He denied that he had effected seizure of mobile phone and SIM No. 98274-87924 from Govind Chandra for creating false evidence knowing well that the said SIM does not belong to Govind Chandra. 54. PW-29 Anil Verma is the Nodal Officer of the Reliance Communications Limited for the State of Chhattisgarh. He has proved the Email request sent by the Additional SP, Crime Branch, Raipur seeking call details of SIM No. 98274-87924 for the period 17.4.2010 to 19.4.2010 and the same was provided to him vide Ex.-P/56. Similar request for SIM No. 78281-73217 was made seeking call details from 17.4.2010 to 28.4.2010 vide Ex.-P/57, which was provided to the said police officer vide Ex.-P/58. He has also proved that this SIM was issued in the name of Pratap Kumar Chandra (PW-8). Similar request for SIM No. 78281-73217 was made seeking call details from 17.4.2010 to 28.4.2010 vide Ex.-P/57, which was provided to the said police officer vide Ex.-P/58. He has also proved that this SIM was issued in the name of Pratap Kumar Chandra (PW-8). He has also proved the certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Ex.-P/59) by which he obtained these call details from his Company's Computer server. He has also stated in cross-examination that when a person makes a call through his mobile number/SIM number, he gets connected with the nearest reliance tower (BTS) and then he will be connected with Raipur (M.S.C.) and thereafter with the data server placed at Mumbai. He has said that the call details remains available in the server for 6 months and if the call details are not sought by the police or any other agency within one year, the same is deleted from the server and it cannot be obtained after one year. However, if the details are sought by the police or any other agency, it is saved and the details can be provided subsequently also. 55. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Govt. Advocate for the State at length and perused the record. 56.Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on judgments in the matters of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 , P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142 , Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564 , Ram Anup Singh Vs. State of Bihar & others, (2002) 6 SCC 686 , Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 , Machhi Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 , State of MP Vs. Bhim Mohamad S/o Nyaz Moh., 2001 (1) CGLJ 91 , Pandurang Kalu Patil and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 490 , Mayakaur Baldevsingh Sardar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 654 , and N.J. Suraj Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2004) 11 SCC 346 57. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no ocular version of the incident. 58. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 654 , and N.J. Suraj Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2004) 11 SCC 346 57. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no ocular version of the incident. 58. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has underlined the conditions, which must be fulfilled for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and held in para-152 as under: “152.A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) where the following observations were made: “certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 59. To examine whether the prosecution has been able to bring its case within the parameters of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), this Court has discussed the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution. 60. To examine whether the prosecution has been able to bring its case within the parameters of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), this Court has discussed the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution. 60. The circumstances brought on record by the prosecution against the appellants are of the following nature:- Motive for commission of crime. Memorandum statements/disclosure statements and consequent seizures. Last seen at the place of occurrence and the identification. Conspiracy/call details. 61. Motive for commission of crime.-The prosecution witnesses namely, PW-4 Gopal Dubey, Advocate, PW-9 Purshottam and PW10 Dhanesh Kumar, Sarpanch of village Dhansir, have stated that Mela Bai, wife of Purshottam (PW-9) contested the election of Sarpanch against Mithila (deceased), wife of Tikaram (deceased). Mela Bai won the said election by defeating Mithila Bai. Deceased Tikaram was accusing that his wife Mithila lost the election because of appellant Govind Chandra. Incidentally, Govind Chandra and deceased Tikaram belong to same caste whereas elected Sarpanch Mela Bai belongs to Kewat caste. It appears, because of election related dispute wherein Govind Chandra did not support the candidate of his own caste i.e. Mithila, wife of Tikaram, Govind Chandra was ostracized at the instance of deceased Tikaram. Govind Chandra had requested Gopal Dubey (PW-4) and Purshottam (PW-9) that because of Tikaram he has been ostracized, therefore, they should intervene and sort out the matter. Similarly, PW-4 Gopal Dubey, Advocate and PW-17 Tikaram Jaiswal have stated that there was land dispute between Tikaram and Govind wherein Govind Chandra was alleging that Tikaram has grabbed 6 acres of land by preparing forged WILL. PW-4 Gopal Dubey, Advocate has also stated that the said land dispute was ultimately compromised. Thus the prosecution has proved the motive in the form of ostracizing of Govind Chandra at the instance of Tikaram pursuant to election dispute and prior land dispute between them though the same was compromised. These circumstance have been duly proved by the prosecution against appellant Govind Chandra. 62. Memorandum statements/disclosure statements and consequent seizures.-PW-10 Dhanesh Kumar is the Sarpanch of village Dhansir whereas PW-17 Tikaram Jaiswal is a villager. These two witnesses have proved memorandum statement of Govind Chandra vide Ex.-P/23, which led to recovery of one bunch of sewing machine thread; one bunch of thick thread; one nail (Kheela); one Nokia mobile bearing SIM No. 98274-87924 and one old Atlas cycle vide Ex.-P/24. These two witnesses have proved memorandum statement of Govind Chandra vide Ex.-P/23, which led to recovery of one bunch of sewing machine thread; one bunch of thick thread; one nail (Kheela); one Nokia mobile bearing SIM No. 98274-87924 and one old Atlas cycle vide Ex.-P/24. Similarly, bright red coloured wrapper of fireworks and soil of the place where Govind allegedly manufactured the bombs were recovered vide Ex.-P/25. This document has also been proved by these two witnesses. They also proved memorandum statements of Om Prakash vide Ex.-P/26 and recovery of Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle, towel, one mobile set and one SIM bearing No. 78281-73217 from him vide Ex.-P/27. These witnesses have also proved memorandum statement of Ganesh vide Ex.-P/28 and recovery of towel from him pursuant to the said memorandum. The witnesses have fully supported the prosecution and thus, the memorandum statements/disclosure statements made by the accused persons and consequent seizures are fully proved and thus, this circumstance has also been proved against the appellants. 63. Last seen at the place of occurrence and identification.-PW-5 Sudarshan is the younger brother of deceased Tikaram. At about 3-4 pm in the afternoon of 18.4.2010 i.e. the previous afternoon before the incident which happened at 6-6.30 am on 19.4.2010, he had seen Govind Chandra on the embankment of the village tank. When he came back to the house, he witnessed Om Prakash and Ganesh at the residence of Tikaram. Deceased Fagulal informed him that Om Prakash and Ganesh are asking for drinking water and thereafter Sudarshan provided them drinking water. Fagulal informed this witness that Om Prakash and Ganesh have left a bag containing articles/spares of borewell. He handed over a piece of paper, which in turn was provided to him by Om Prakash and Ganesh. On this paper, a phone number was written and when this witness asked Fagulal as to where are the pipes, Fagulal stated that he can enquire on the phone number written on the piece of paper. At this time, appellant Om Prakash and Ganesh started motorcycle; Ganesh saw towards the pond; Om Prakash smiled and they left the place. PW-16 Pramod Das had also seen Govind Chandra going towards the tank a day prior to the incident. PW-22 Arun Kumar Sharma is the Tehsildar who conducted TI parade of the accused persons and has proved the identification memo Ex.-P/19. PW-16 Pramod Das had also seen Govind Chandra going towards the tank a day prior to the incident. PW-22 Arun Kumar Sharma is the Tehsildar who conducted TI parade of the accused persons and has proved the identification memo Ex.-P/19. PW-5 Sudarshan has correctly identified the accused persons during the identification parade. Thus, it is fully established that the witnesses had seen appellants Om Prakash and Ganesh in the afternoon at 3-4 pm in the house of Tikaram when they left the bag containing spare of borewell. Similarly, the witnesses had seen Govind Chandra at the tank situated very near to the house of Tikaram almost at the same time when Om Prakash and Ganesh were delivering bag in the house of Tikaram. The accused persons have been correctly identified by PW-5 Sudarshan during the test identification parade conducted by PW-22 Arun Kumar Sharma. 64. Conspiracy/call details.-According to the prosecution, the appellants had hatched a conspiracy for committing murder of Tikaram, Mithila and Fagulal. As earlier discussed, Govind Chandra had a grudge against Tikaram on account of dispute concerning election of Sarpanch wherein Govind Chandra had worked to defeat Tikaram's wife in the election of Sarpanch and for this reason, Govind Chandra was ostracized. They also had a property dispute. Appellant Om Prakash is the brother-in-law of appellant Govind Chandra whereas appellant Ganesh is the nephew (Bhanja) of appellant Om Prakash. It is said that initially Govind Chandra and Om Prakash hatched a conspiracy for eliminating Tikaram. Govind Chandra purchased the bombs from the market and manufactured a suitcase bomb which would explode the moment suitcase is opened. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, Govind Chandra deputed Om Prakash to deliver the bag containing suitcase bomb in the house of Tikaram by saying that the bag contains borewell spares/articles. Om Prakash, in turn, took appellant Ganesh with him for making delivery of the bag. On 18.4.2010, Tikaram had gone to attend 6th day ceremony of birth of a child in the house of PW-4 Gopal Dubey, Advocate. Therefore, at the time of delivery of bag containing suitcase bomb, he was not available in the house. He came back in the night. Next day morning, he opened the suitcase on which the bomb exploded killing Tikaram and 2 other deceased persons. Therefore, at the time of delivery of bag containing suitcase bomb, he was not available in the house. He came back in the night. Next day morning, he opened the suitcase on which the bomb exploded killing Tikaram and 2 other deceased persons. About same time when Om Prakash and Ganesh were delivering the bag containing suitcase bomb in the house of Tikaram, Govind Chandra was seen at the pond adjoining the house of Tikaram by PW-5 Sudarshan and PW-16 Pramod Das. PW-5 Sudarshan has also stated that when he reached the house at about 3-4 pm in the afternoon of 18.4.2010, Om Prakash and Ganesh were present in the house of Tikaram. He supplied drinking water to them. When Om Prakash started motorcycle and Ganesh was sitting as pillion rider, Ganesh saw towards the village pond (where Govind Chandra was seen at the same time) and Om Prakash smiled. 65. It has also been found in the preceding paragraphs that memorandum statements and consequent seizures of incriminating articles from each of the accused persons have been proved by PW-10 Dhanesh Kumar and PW-17 Tikaram Jaiswal. 66.In Mohamad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1062, it has been held in paragraph17 of the judgment that for an offence under Section 120-B the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. 67. In Kehar Singh and others V. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1883, it has been held that generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. 68. The prosecution has adduced the evidence in form of electronic records i.e. call details obtained from the service provider i.e. Reliance Communications Limited, which were stored in the Company's computer server. Such evidence is admissible in evidence as provided under Section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, if the same is produced in the manner specified in Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act. The said provision reads as under:- “65B(2). The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its electronic; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.” 69. Under sub-section (3) of Section 65B, sub-section (1) and (2) would apply where single or combination of computers, is used for storage or processing in the regular course of activities and the computers used shall be construed as a single computer. Under sub-section (3) of Section 65B, sub-section (1) and (2) would apply where single or combination of computers, is used for storage or processing in the regular course of activities and the computers used shall be construed as a single computer. Under sub-section (4) of Section 65B, if evidence is desired to be led under Section 65B, it would be admissible if a certificate is tendered, signed by a person either occupying a responsible official position in relation to the computer or being in the management of the relevant activities; provided the following is certified: “(a) electronic record containing the statement is identified with description of how it was produced; (b) that electronic record was a computer printout generated by a device particulars whereof are given; (c) deals with matters to which conditions in subsection (2) relate.” 70. In the matter of R v. Shepherd, [1993] 1 All ER 225, Lord Griffiths dealing with the defence argument held as under:- “Documents produced by computers are an increasingly common feature of all business and more and more people are becoming familiar with their uses and operation. Computers vary immensely in their complexity and in the operations they perform. The nature of the evidence to discharge the burden of showing that there has been no improper use of the computer and that it was operating properly will inevitably vary from case to case. The evidence must be tailored to suit the needs of the case. I suspect that it will very rarely be necessary to call an expert and that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible to discharge the burden by calling a witness who is familiar with the operation of the computer in the sense of knowing what the computer is required to do and who can say that it is doing it properly. The computer in this case was of the simplest kind printing limited basic information on each till roll. The store detective was able to describe how the tills operated, what the computer did, that there had been no trouble with the computer and how she had also examined all the till rolls, which showed no evidence of malfunction either by the tills or the central computer. The store detective was able to describe how the tills operated, what the computer did, that there had been no trouble with the computer and how she had also examined all the till rolls, which showed no evidence of malfunction either by the tills or the central computer. In these circumstances I agree with the Court of Appeal that she was fully qualified to give the evidence required by s 69 and that in the light of her evidence the till rolls were properly admitted as part of the prosecution case. I therefore answer the certified question by saying that s 69 (I) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 can be satisfied by the oral evidence of a person familiar with the operation of the computer who can give evidence of its reliability and such a person need not be a computer expert.” 71. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 , the Supreme Court, while accepting such a plea, held in paragraph-150 as under:- “150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, “copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies.” Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.” 72. In the case in hand, PW-29 Anil Verma, Nodal Officer of the Reliance Communications Limited for the State of Chhattisgarh has proved that on the request made by the Additional SP, Crime Branch, Raipur, call details of SIM No.98274-87924 and SIM No.78281-73217 were provided. In para-15 of his cross-examination, he has stated that they get information immediately if the server is not properly working and since no such information was available, he would say that the server was properly working. He has also proved the certificate (Ex.-P/9) issued by him on behalf of the Reliance Telecom Limited, in compliance of the provisions contained under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, we hold that the evidence in the form of electronic record i.e. the call details are admissible in evidence, as the same has been issued by the competent officer of the Reliance Telecom Limited after making due compliance of the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. 73. To prove that the accused persons had conspired to commit the offence, the prosecution has relied upon the call details obtained from telecom service provider indicating the frequency of calls made by Govind Chandra (from whom SIM number 98274-87924 was seized) with Om Prakash (from whom mobile SIM bearing number 78281-73217 was recovered). On 17th April, 2010, Govind Chandra called on the mobile number of Om Prakash thrice. At this time, his mobile was connected with the mobile tower located in the house of one Ashutosh Sultania at village Dhansir. Govind Chandra and Om Prakash got connected on mobile for the first time on 18th April, 2010 at 6.11 am, however, during the later part of the day, frequency of their connectivity increased. At this time, his mobile was connected with the mobile tower located in the house of one Ashutosh Sultania at village Dhansir. Govind Chandra and Om Prakash got connected on mobile for the first time on 18th April, 2010 at 6.11 am, however, during the later part of the day, frequency of their connectivity increased. They had talked at 9.37 am, 10.43 am, 10.46 am, 10.50 am, 11.00 am, 11.06 am, 11.15 am, 13.36 hours, 15.24 hours and on 9 occasions between 16.45 hours & 17.24 hours. During all this time Govind Chandra was connected with the mobile tower of Ashutosh Sultania, village Dhansir. Frequency of their conversation on 18th April, 2010 i.e. the day when bag was delivered by Om Prakash and during the most relevant time i.e. during noon and evening, shows that they were constantly in touch with each other, at almost every 5 minutes intervals. At the time when the bomb exploded i.e. at about 6 am on 19.4.2010, Govind Chandra and Om Prakash remained connected at 6.00 hours, 6.14 hours and 7.58 hours and later in the evening at 17.32 hours. 74. In juxtaposition to call details obtained from the mobile number of Govind Chandra to that of call details of Om Prakash, it would appear that on 17th, 18th and 19th April, 2010, Om Prakash was on the move and was not stationed at a particular place. In the morning of 18th April, 2010, from 9.37 hours to 17.24 hours Om Prakash remained connected with mobile tower placed in the house of Ashutosh Sultania of village Dhansir and during this period, he received calls from only one mobile number i.e. 9827487924 recovered from the possession of Govind Chandra. It appears, after alleged delivery of bag by Om Prakash in the house of Tikaram, he moved out of the village, therefore, when he was again called by Govind Chandra in the morning of the day of the incident i.e. 19.4.2010, Om Prakash was connected with the mobile tower placed on the land belonging to Kanti Bai Shukla of village Hasaud. When Govind Chandra called Om Prakash for the 3rd time in the morning of 19.4.2010 at 7.58 hours, Om Prakash was connected with the mobile tower located in the house of Shri Acheram, village Hirri, Tehsil Sarangarh and in the evening he was connected with the tower located at village Sarsiva, Tehsil Bilaigarh. When Govind Chandra called Om Prakash for the 3rd time in the morning of 19.4.2010 at 7.58 hours, Om Prakash was connected with the mobile tower located in the house of Shri Acheram, village Hirri, Tehsil Sarangarh and in the evening he was connected with the tower located at village Sarsiva, Tehsil Bilaigarh. There is no outgoing or incoming call on the mobile number of Om Prakash during the period 17.32 hours of 19th April, 2010 to 12.02 hours on 21st April, 2010. 75. From the above description of the call details of the SIM numbers recovered from Govind Chandra and Om Prakash, it would clearly appear that there were high frequency of calls between them before and immediately after delivery of bag by Om Prakash in the house of Tikaram. The frequency was unusually quick i.e. 9 calls within a gap of every 5 minutes in the late afternoon when the bag was delivered. When the bomb exploded at 6-6.30 am on 19.4.2010, they had conversation at 6.00 hours, 6.14 hours and 7.58 hours. More importantly, Om Prakash is the resident of village Balpur, PS Sarsiva whereas on 18th April, 2010, he was at village Jogideepa where Govind Chandra resides because call details of Om Prakash from the morning of 18th April till the evening of 18th April, 2010 would indicate that during this period he was connected with mobile tower located in the house of Ashutosh Sultania at village Dhansir with which SIM/mobile number recovered from Govind Chandra was also connected. It is strange as to why both of them had to speak on a mobile phone throughout the day on 18th April, 2010 when they were present in a small village i.e. Jogideepa where the incident took place. It is equally interesting that soon after the time when the bag was delivered in the afternoon of 18th April, 2010, when the first call was made between Govind Chandra and Om Prakash at 6 am on 19th April, 2010, Om Prakash had moved out of Jogideepa, as at that time, he was connected with the mobile tower located at village Hasaud. 76. 76. When the evidence of call details together with location of mobile towers with which Om Prakash and Govind remained connected on 18th and 19th April, 2010 is read along with the evidence of motive for Govind Chandra, disclosure statements and consequent seizures from each of the appellants and the presence of Om Prakash and Ganesh at 3-4 pm in the afternoon by PW-5 Sudarshan in the house of Tikaram, it is established that there existed a conspiracy between Govind Chandra and Om Prakash for committing the crime and in furtherance thereof, they have committed murder of deceased Tikaram and 2 other deceased persons by causing bomb explosion, which was fitted in the suitcase and devised in such a manner that the bomb would explode as soon as the suitcase is opened. At the same time, it does not appear that Ganesh was a part of the conspiracy because there is no recovery of SIM nor any call detail proving connectivity between Govind Chandra and Ganesh or between Om Prakash and Ganesh. There is no evidence either to the effect that Ganesh was aware that the bag contains the suitcase in which the bomb is fitted. In the absence of any cogent evidence against appellant Ganesh, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Ganesh was a part of the conspiracy hatched between Govind Chandra and Om Prakash. 77. On the basis of above circumstantial evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that as regards appellants Govind Chandra and Om Prakash, the chain of circumstantial evidence is so established that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of these accused and they are not explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused are guilty. The circumstances proved by the prosecution are of a conclusive nature and tendency and they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved i.e. the guilt of the accused. The chain of circumstantial evidence found proved by the Court shows that in all human probability the act has been done by accused Govind Chandra & Om Prakash and it does not leave any reasonable ground for drawing conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 78. However, as against appellant Ganesh, the prosecution has not been able to prove the existence of conspiracy, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 79. 78. However, as against appellant Ganesh, the prosecution has not been able to prove the existence of conspiracy, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 79. In Bishnu Prasad Sinha and another Vs. State of Assam, (2007) 11 SCC 467 , the Supreme Court has held that ordinarily in a case based on circumstantial evidence, death penalty should not be imposed. 80. In the present case also, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, therefore, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bishnu Prasad Sinha (Supra), we hold that imposition of imprisonment for life would be the adequate sentence. 81. Section 2(h) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') defines “prohibited ammunition” to mean any ammunition, containing, or designed or adapted to contain, any noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, and includes rockets, bombs, grenades, shells, [missiles] articles designed for torpedo service and submarine mining and such other articles as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be prohibited ammunition. 82. As per Section 27(3) of the Act of 1959, whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death. 83. In the case in hand, it has been proved that appellants Govind and Omprakash hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, Govind prepared a suitcase bomb, which was handed over to Omprakash, who thereafter took the suitcase bomb along with third accused Ganesh for delivery of the same in the house of Tikaram in his absence and thus, appellants Govind and Omprakash have committed offence under Section 27 (3) of the Act of 1959 and their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for such offence is fully borne out from the evidence available on record. Therefore, the appeal to this aspect also deserves to be dismissed. 84. Similarly, the appellants have been convicted for committing offence under Sections 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act of 1884') and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act of 1908'). 85. Therefore, the appeal to this aspect also deserves to be dismissed. 84. Similarly, the appellants have been convicted for committing offence under Sections 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act of 1884') and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act of 1908'). 85. Since appellants Govind and Omprakash have been found to hatch a conspiracy, manufacture explosives in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1884 and the rules framed thereunder, their conviction under Section 9B of the Act of 1884 is fully justified. Their conviction under Section 4 of the Act of 1908 for doing the act with intent to cause explosion and being in possession of explosives has already been proved and as such, their conviction under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act of 1908 is borne out from the evidence available on record. Thus, the appeal in respect of appellants Govind and Omprakash on these counts also fails. However, the appeal in respect of appellant Ganesh for the charges under Sections 27(3) of the Arms Act, Section 9B of the Act of 1884 and Sections 4 & 5 of the Act of 1908 deserves to be allowed and his conviction under the aforesaid sections deserve to be set aside. 86. In the result:- (i) Criminal Reference No.2/2013 is answered in negative and we dispose of the criminal reference by not confirming the death sentence. (ii) Criminal appeal No.374/2013 preferred by the appellants is partly allowed in respect of appellants Govind Chandra and Om Prakash. Death sentences imposed upon them under Sections 302/34 IPC (3 counts), 120B IPC & 27 (3) of the Arms Act are set aside and instead, they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Conviction and sentence imposed upon them under Sections 9B of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are hereby maintained. (iii) The appeal in respect of appellant Ganesh is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon him as mentioned in paragraph-1 of the judgment are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in any other case, on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.5,000/-with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. Conviction and sentence imposed upon him as mentioned in paragraph-1 of the judgment are set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in any other case, on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.5,000/-with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. His bond shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. He shall appear before the higher Court, as and when directed.