Judgment P.S. Rana, J. Both appeals filed against the same judgment and sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Sirmour District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 5-N/7 of 2007 titled State of H.P. Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others decided on 30th September, 2008 hence both appeals are consolidated and dispose of by way of same judgment. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that deceased Ashok Kumar was a son of Brij Bala who was running a CD shop near Petrol Pump at Paonta Sahib and on dated 11.1.2007 the deceased Ashok Kumar went to drop his maternal grand mother Jeeto Devi from his house in village Bhatawali to Kulahal at about 2.30 PM and dropped Jeeto Devi at Kulahal but thereafter he did not return back to his home. It is alleged by the prosecution that Brij Bala traced deceased in the village and in her relations but she did not get any information about the deceased. It is further alleged that on 11.1.2007 at about 7 PM co- accused Rajesh Kumar came to the house of Brij Bala and told that a telephone call was received by him from the mobile of the deceased from some unknown person. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar also told Brij Bala that unknown person wanted to talk with Brij Bala through mobile phone of co-accused Rajesh Kumar. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter Brij Bala had also talked with some unknown person who asked her to arrange Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupee ten lacs) and also threatened her not to disclose the same to the police or to any other villagers otherwise the deceased would be killed. It is further alleged that Brij Bala reported the matter to the Police officials on 12.1.2007 and her statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. was recorded by Inspector Narveer Singh the then SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib which was forwarded to the Police Station through constable Deepak Kumar on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW17/B was recorded by Inspector Gurbax Singh. It is further alleged that police officials went to the house of Brij Bala in order to get such conversation recorded and at that time co-accused Rajesh Kumar was also present in the house of Brij Bala. It is further alleged that police officials went to the house of Brij Bala in order to get such conversation recorded and at that time co-accused Rajesh Kumar was also present in the house of Brij Bala. It is alleged that at about 9.30 PM a telephone call was received on mobile phone bearing No. 98168-16208 of co-accused Rajesh Kumar from mobile phone No.98171-74996 belonging to the deceased. It is alleged that Brij Bala had conversation with unknown person on the mobile phone which was recorded by Inspector Narveer Singh in his personal micro cassette and the same was put in a parcel and was sealed with seal impression ‘T’ and was seized vide memo Ext PW16/B in the presence of Jeeto Devi. It is further alleged that thereafter information was received on 14.1.2007 at Police Post Kulhal that a dead body was found in Shakti canal in village Dhaula Tapad on the basis of which rapat was recorded. It is alleged that thereafter the relatives of the deceased went to the spot along with police officials. It is alleged that the dead body of the deceased was tied with motor cycle with the help of a rope and the motor cycle was identified by Brij Bala to be that of deceased Ashok Kumar. It is further alleged by the prosecution that two samples of soil were taken from the spot. It is further alleged that motor cycle bearing No. HP 17A-3289 along with pieces of rope with which the dead body was tied was taken into possession. It is further alleged that blood sample was also obtained from the body of the deceased. It is further alleged that photographs of the dead body were also obtained. It is further alleged that dead body was sent for post mortem examination. It is alleged that as per post mortem report the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries. It is further alleged that sweater, T-shirt, Pant, underwear and a pair of shoe of the deceased were also preserved and sealed. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 14.1.2007 Mahender Kaur along with Suman Devi and some other ladies went to collect wood to Dhaula Tapad where they saw blood, blood stained shirt and shoe. It is further alleged by prosecution that the relatives of the deceased identified the articles belonging to the deceased. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 14.1.2007 Mahender Kaur along with Suman Devi and some other ladies went to collect wood to Dhaula Tapad where they saw blood, blood stained shirt and shoe. It is further alleged by prosecution that the relatives of the deceased identified the articles belonging to the deceased. It is further alleged by the prosecution that shoe Ext P1 and shirt Ext P2 were taken into possession and sealed in a parcel. It is further alleged by the prosecution that blood stained soil and blood stained grass from the spot were also taken into possession and were sealed in a parcel. It is further alleged that on 16.1.2007 the call details of mobile phone No. 98168-16208 and 98168-20318 were obtained from Nodal Officer. It is further alleged by the prosecution that mobile No. 98168-16208 was registered in the name of Hem Lata and mobile phone No. 98168-20318 was issued in the name of Kaushalya. It is further alleged that mobile phone No. 98171-74996 was issued in the name of the deceased. It is further alleged that on the basis of the call details the co-accused Rajesh Kumar along with Sher Singh were interrogated by the police and on their interrogation their involvement along with accused Ravinder Kumar were found and thereafter all the accused were arrested accordingly. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused Ravinder Kumar also made a disclosure statement to the police. Thereafter challan was filed against the accused persons before the Court. Learned trial Court framed charge against the accused persons on 15.1.2008 under Sections 120-B 364-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as thirty seven witnesses in support of its case: Sr.No. Name of Witnesses PW1 Mahender Kaur PW2 Omi Chand PW3 Mohan Singh PW4 Anil Kumar PW5 Amar Dass PW6 Pawan Kumar PW7 Kehar Singh PW8 Siya Ram PW9 Rajender Kumar PW10 Kanti Parkash PW11 Suman Devi PW12 Surjan Singh PW13 Prem Singh PW14 Dr. B.C. Ramola PW15 Isham Singh PW16 Brij Bala PW17 Inspector Gurbax Singh PW18 C.Deepak Kumar PW19 C. Kamlesh Kumar, PW20 HC Choli Ram PW21 ASI Raghubir Singh PW22 Gurdayal Singh PW23 Jeeto Devi PW24 SI Tribhuvan Rautela PW25 Ashok Kumar PW26 Sadhu Ram PW27 Rajesh Pandey PW28 Pardeep Kumar PW29 Nishtha Trihan PW30 Dr. B.C. Ramola PW15 Isham Singh PW16 Brij Bala PW17 Inspector Gurbax Singh PW18 C.Deepak Kumar PW19 C. Kamlesh Kumar, PW20 HC Choli Ram PW21 ASI Raghubir Singh PW22 Gurdayal Singh PW23 Jeeto Devi PW24 SI Tribhuvan Rautela PW25 Ashok Kumar PW26 Sadhu Ram PW27 Rajesh Pandey PW28 Pardeep Kumar PW29 Nishtha Trihan PW30 Dr. Gian Thakur PW31 Devender Verma PW32 HC Ram Singh PW33 Pankaj Gupta PW34 C. Rakesh Kumar PW35 Dr. C.P. Singh PW36 HC Harkesh Singh PW37 Insp. Narveer Singh 3.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description Ext.PW1/A Recovery memo of blood stained shirt and shoe Ext.PW1/B Recovery memo of blood stained soil. Ext.PW2/A Recovery memo of samples. Ext.PW2/B Recovery memo of pant Ext.PW3/A Panchnama of dead body Ext.PW3/B Disclosure memo Ext.PW3/C Sketch of darat Ext.PW3/D Recovery memo of darat Ext.PW4/A Recovery memo of pant kotrai Ext.PW5/A Recovery memo of mobile Ext.PW6/A Recovery memo Ext.PW6/B Disclosure statement of Rajesh Ext.PW9/A Recovery memo of motor cycle Ext.PW9/B Disclosure memo of motor cycle Ext.PW9/C Disclosure statement of Sher Singh Ext.PW9/D Recovery memo of three keys Ext.PW9/E Memo regarding resealing keys and locks Ext.PW10/A Memo regarding purchase of one rope. Ext.PW12/A Recovery memo of RC and insurance of motor cycle Ext.PW13/A Recovery memo of jacket and shoes Ext.PW13/B Recovery memo of jacket and shoes Ext.PW14/A Post mortem report Ext.PW14/B Sample seal Ext.PW15/A Spot map Ext.PW15/B Letter addressed to R.O. Timli Ext.PW16/A Statement of Brij Bala. Ext.PW16/B Memo Ext.PW17/A Endorsement of statement of Smt. Brij Bala Ext.PW17/B FIR Ext.PW19/A Rapat No. 14 and 15 Ext.PW20/A1 to Ext.PW20/A-19 Photographs Ext.PW20/A- 20 to Ext.PW20/A38 Negatives Ext.PW21/A Copy of RC Ext.PW21/B Copy of road certificate Ext.PW21/C Copy of RC Ext.PW22/A Rapat Ext.PW24/A Recovery memo Ext.PW24/B Recovery memo Ext.PW24/D Seizure memo of blood sample. Ext.PW24/D to Ext.PW24/F Specimen of seals Ext.PW24/G Post mortem report. Ext.PW24/H Letter Ext.PW24/I Rapat No. 17 dt. 14.1.2007 Ext.PW27/A Bill of Sai Electronics Ext.PW29/A Certificate of Reliance Telecom Ext.PW29/B Call details of mobile Ext.PW29/C Subscriber enrollment form Smart Ext.PW29/D Certificate regarding mobile phone No. 98171-13977 Ext.PW29/E Call details Ext.PW30/A Letter No. 921 dt. Ext.PW24/D to Ext.PW24/F Specimen of seals Ext.PW24/G Post mortem report. Ext.PW24/H Letter Ext.PW24/I Rapat No. 17 dt. 14.1.2007 Ext.PW27/A Bill of Sai Electronics Ext.PW29/A Certificate of Reliance Telecom Ext.PW29/B Call details of mobile Ext.PW29/C Subscriber enrollment form Smart Ext.PW29/D Certificate regarding mobile phone No. 98171-13977 Ext.PW29/E Call details Ext.PW30/A Letter No. 921 dt. 3.4.2007 Ext.PW30/B Report of FSL Ext.PW31/A Certificate regarding mobile No. 98168-16208 & 98168-20318 Ext.PW31/B Call details for the month of January 2007 to 15th Jan, 2007 Ext.PW31/C Enrollment form of mobile No. 98168-16208 Ext.PW33/A Application of SHO Ext.PW33/B Statement of Ravinder Ext.PW33/C Statement of Sher Singh Ext.PW33/D Another application of SHO Ext.PW33/E Copy of transcription Ext.PW33/F Statement of accused Sher Singh Ext.PW33/G Statement of accused Ravinder Ext.PW33/H Statement of Inspector Narveer Ext.PW33/I Statement of accused Sher Singh Ext.PW33/J Statement of accused Ravinder. Ext.PW33/K Order dated 17.3.2007 Ext.PW35/A Report of Examiner Ext.PW35/B Transcription Ext.PW36/A Copy of Rapat No. 30 dt.14.1.2007 Ext.PW37/A Spot map of recovery Ext.PW37/B Spot map of recovery memo of mobile Ext.PW37/C Spot map of recovery of pant. Ext.PW37/D Spot map of recovery of motorcycle Ext.PW37/E Farad Nishan Dehi Ext.PW37/F Spot map Ext.PW37/G Spot map Ext.PW37/H Statement of Ashok Kumar Ext.PW37/I Statement of Sadhu Ram Ext.PW37/J1 to Ext.PW37/J7 Samples Mark-A Statement of Pawan Kumar under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Mark-B Statement of Pawan Kumar Mark-C Statement of Kehar Singh under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Mark-D Statement of Ashok Kumar Mark-E Statement of Sadhu Ram under Section 161 Cr. P.C. 4. Statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Learned trial Court acquitted co-accused Ravinder Kumar. Learned trial Court also acquitted co-accused Rajesh Kumar and Sher Singh under Section 120-B IPC but convicted them under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial court sentenced both the accused namely Sher Singh and Rajesh Kumar under Section 364-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand )and in default of payment of fine learned trial Court directed that convicted persons would undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned trial Court also sentenced the convicted persons under Section 302 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine learned trial Court directed that convicted persons would undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year . Learned trial Court also sentenced the convicted persons under Section 302 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine learned trial Court directed that convicted persons would undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year . Learned trial Court also sentenced the convicted persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand). Learned trial court further directed that in default of payment of fine convicted persons would undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 201 IPC. Learned trial Court has further directed that all the subst sentences passed against the convicted persons shall run concurrently and further directed that the period of detention during the investigation and trial would be set-off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court convicted persons filed two appeals on following memorandum of grounds of appeals. Grounds of Criminal Appeal No. 560 of 2008 filed by convicted Rajesh Kumar. 5. It is pleaded that judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court are based upon conjectures and surmises. It is further pleaded that different disclosure statements recorded by the prosecution are doubtful because the place was already known to the Investigating Agency. It is pleaded that despite thirty seven witnesses examined by the prosecution but none has seen the appellant in abducting deceased Ashok Kumar. It is further pleaded that recovery of jacket Ext P11 and shoes Ext P12 in the presence of PW13 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further pleaded that there is no eye witness of the incident of abduction and there is no evidence of throwing the dead body in the canal with motor cycle. It is further pleaded that no recovery has been made at the instance of the appellant and recovery of shoes by the prosecution is doubtful. It is further pleaded that Mr. Vikas was not impleaded as co-accused who has given threatening to the deceased prior to the incident. It is further pleaded that possibility of killing Ashok Kumar by Vikas could not be ruled out. It is further pleaded that no circumstance proved that appellant Rajesh Kumar has committed offence as alleged by the prosecution. Prayer for acceptance of appeal is sought. Grounds of Cr. It is further pleaded that possibility of killing Ashok Kumar by Vikas could not be ruled out. It is further pleaded that no circumstance proved that appellant Rajesh Kumar has committed offence as alleged by the prosecution. Prayer for acceptance of appeal is sought. Grounds of Cr. Appeal No. 709 of 2008 filed by convicted Sher Singh. 6. It is pleaded that judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court are contrary to law and facts. It is further pleaded that appellant has been impleaded as co-accused in the present case only on the basis of hearsay evidence. It is further pleaded that there is no evidence on record to prove that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten thousand) was demanded by the appellant as ransom for the release of deceased Ashok Kumar. It is further pleaded that there is no evidence on record that the deceased was running a CD shop. It is further pleaded that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the appellant Sher Singh. It is further pleaded that prosecution did not prove the case against the appellant Sher Singh beyond any reasonable doubt. It is further pleaded that in the present case two views are possible and the learned trial Court has not adopted the law favourable to the appellant. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 7. We have considered submissions of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) and learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent. 8. Question that arises for determination before us in these appeals is whether learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was justified in convicting both the appellants. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9. PW1 Smt. Mahender Kaur has stated that on 13th/14th January 2007 she along with Suman Devi and other ladies had gone to collect wood in Uttrakhand. She has stated that she saw there blood, blood stained shirt and shoe. She has stated that she became frightened and came back to her house and told about it to the mother of deceased Ashok Kumar. She has stated that on next day she went along with police and other persons to forest and showed the place of incident to the police. She has stated that the police took into possession shirt and shoes, blood stained soil and soil from the spot. She has stated that on next day she went along with police and other persons to forest and showed the place of incident to the police. She has stated that the police took into possession shirt and shoes, blood stained soil and soil from the spot. She has stated that police also took photographs of the place of incident. She has stated that the police prepared recovery memos Ext PW1/A and Ext PW1/B and put her thumb impression on the memos. She has stated that at that time Raj Pal and Ami Chand were also present there. She has stated that shoe Ext P1 and shirt Ext P2 are the same which were taken into possession by the police. She has stated that shirt was lying at a distance of about 10/15 feet away from the shoe. 9.1. PW2 Omi Chand has stated that in his presence police took into possession shoe Ext P1, shirt Ext P2, blood stained soil, sample soil and recovery memos Ext PW1/A, Ext PW1/B and Ext PW2/A. He has further stated that co-accused Sher Singh made a disclosure statement to the police that he could show the place where he has thrown pant into the Yamuna River. In cross examination he has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar was the son of his sister. He has stated that when the dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar was found a procession by the nearby villagers was taken out against the police officials and the traffic was jammed. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Sher Singh did not made any disclosure statement to the police. 9.2. PW3 Mohan Singh has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar was his brother-in-law and his sister was married to him. He has stated that body of deceased Ashok Kumar was found near Dhaula Kuan. He has stated that dead body was recovered by the police officials in Shakati canal and it was tied with motor cycle. He has stated that he identified the dead body which was recovered by the Uttranchal police. He has stated that dead body was sent for conducting post mortem. He has stated that police officials also recovered one shirt, one shoe and also collected blood stained soil and soil sample from Dhaula Tapad. He has identified the clothes of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that dead body was sent for conducting post mortem. He has stated that police officials also recovered one shirt, one shoe and also collected blood stained soil and soil sample from Dhaula Tapad. He has identified the clothes of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that co-accused Sher Singh made a disclosure statement to the police that he could get recovered darat (Sharp edged weapon) which he had thrown near Ranbaxy factory. He has stated that disclosure statement was reduced into writing and he signed the disclosure statement as witness. He has stated that thereafter police recovered darat (Sharp edged weapon) beneath the bushes. He has stated that darat (Sharp edged weapon) was wrapped in a cloth and it was sealed at the spot and recovery memo Ext PW3/D was prepared. Witness identified co-accused Sher Singh in the Court. He has further stated that darat (Sharp edged weapon) Ext P3 was the same which was recovered at the instance of co-accused Sher Singh. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that no darat (Sharp edged weapon) was recovered in his presence. He has denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by co-accused Sher Singh qua darat (Sharp edged weapon). 9.3. PW4 Anil Kumar has stated that he remained associated during investigation with the police. He has stated that on dated 17.1.2007 co-accused Sher Singh led police party, himself and another witness near Yamuna Bridge where he pointed the place where he has thrown blood stained pant in Yamuna River. He has stated that he recovered that pant which was entangled with a stone near the Yamuna Bridge. He has stated that pant was taken into possession. He has stated that pant Ext P4 is the same which was recovered from the Yamuna River. In cross examination he denied suggestion that co-accused Sher Singh did not show any place to the police officials. He denied suggestion that no pant was recovered from Yamuna River. 9.4. PW5 Amar Dass has stated that he remained associated during investigation with the police. He has stated that on 17.1.2007 co-accused Ravinder Kumar stated that he could get recovered mobile phone of deceased Ashok Kumar which he concealed near his house in the field. He has stated that co-accused Sher Singh had also given a disclosure statement to police that he has thrown his pant in Yamuna River. He has stated that on 17.1.2007 co-accused Ravinder Kumar stated that he could get recovered mobile phone of deceased Ashok Kumar which he concealed near his house in the field. He has stated that co-accused Sher Singh had also given a disclosure statement to police that he has thrown his pant in Yamuna River. In cross examination he denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by co-accused Sher Singh and co- accused Ravinder Kumar. He has further stated that he had also gone to Dhaula Tapad when the dead body of Ashok Kumar was recovered from the canal. 9.5. PW6 Pawan Kumar has stated that he remained associated with the Investigating Officer. He has stated that on 17.1.2007 co-accused Ravinder Kumar led him, Siya Ram and police party to the fields near brick kiln of Rattan Singh and got recovered the mobile of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has further stated that SIM and battery was found missing. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar had given disclosure statement to the police that he could get recovered the motor cycle. He has further stated that police officials recovered motor cycle as per disclosure statement of accused. The witness was declared hostile. In cross examination he has stated that he had signed the recovery memo about the recovery of mobile in the Police Station. 9.6. PW7 Kehar Singh has stated that he was President of GP Bhatwali for the last two years. He has stated that on dated 18.1.2007 he went to Police Station Paonta Sahib in connection with his personal work. He has further stated that they have recovered motor cycle of Rajesh Kumar from his house. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar did not give any disclosure statement regarding motor cycle in his presence. The witness was declared hostile. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that co-accused Rajesh Kumar being voter of his Panchayat he deposed falsely to save him. 9.7. PW8 Siya Ram has stated that he was Up- Pradhan of Bhatawali Panchayat. He has stated that on dated 17.1.2007 co-accused Ravinder Kumar in his presence got recovered mobile phone near the brick kiln of Rattan Singh. He has further stated that SIM and battery were found missing from the mobile. 9.7. PW8 Siya Ram has stated that he was Up- Pradhan of Bhatawali Panchayat. He has stated that on dated 17.1.2007 co-accused Ravinder Kumar in his presence got recovered mobile phone near the brick kiln of Rattan Singh. He has further stated that SIM and battery were found missing from the mobile. He has stated that thereafter police sealed the mobile in a parcel and took into possession vide memo Ext PW6/A which bears his signature as witness. He has stated that mobile was identified by the mother of deceased Ashok Kumar. In cross examination he denied suggestion that no recovery of mobile was effected in his presence. 9.8. PW9 Rajinder Kumar has stated that on dated 18.1.2007 police called him to Police Station. He has stated that as per disclosure statement of co-accused Rajesh Kumar motor cycle was recovered from his house. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar has given disclosure statement to the police that he could identify the spot where he thrown deceased Ashok Kumar after tying his dead body with his motor cycle. He has stated that co-accused Sher Singh has also given his disclosure statement that he could identify the spot where he and Rajesh Kumar committed murder of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that as per the disclosure statement darat (Sharp edged weapon) was recovered through which deceased was killed. He has stated that darat (Sharp edged weapon) was stained with blood. In cross-examination he denied suggestion that no disclosure statement was given in his presence by accused. 9.9. PW10 Kanti Parkash has stated that he is running a Kiryana shop for the last 28 years at Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on 11th January, 2007 it was Thursday and co-accused Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Sher Singh purchased a rope from his shop for Rs.10/-. He has stated that during investigation police brought accused persons to his shop after eight days on 19.1.2007 and police prepared a memo Ext PW10/A at his shop. 9.10. PW11 Suman Devi has stated that she along with Mahindro Devi and other village ladies had gone in forest in Uttranchal and saw blood stains, one shoe of right foot and one blood stained shirt lying in the forest. She has stated that they immediately came to home and reported the matter to the police. 9.10. PW11 Suman Devi has stated that she along with Mahindro Devi and other village ladies had gone in forest in Uttranchal and saw blood stains, one shoe of right foot and one blood stained shirt lying in the forest. She has stated that they immediately came to home and reported the matter to the police. She has stated that on the next day police visited the spot and took into possession blood stained soil, shoe and shirt. She has stated that police also took photographs at the spot and prepared a video film. She has further stated that shoe Ext P1 and shirt Ext P2 are the same which were lying in the forest. 9.11. PW12 Surjan Singh has stated that on 21.2.2007 Brij Bala mother of deceased Ashok Kumar handed over the RC and Insurance of motor cycle to police vide memo Ext.PW12/A. 9.12. PW13 Prem Singh has stated that he had gone to Police Station Paonta Sahib for his personal work. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Sher Singh handed over jacket and shoe which were blood stained to the police and the same were sealed in two different parcels. 9.13. PW14 Dr. B.C. Ramola has stated that he was posted as Eye Surgeon at Dehradoon for the last about four years. Medical Officer has stated that on dated 15.1.2007 at the request of police he conducted post mortem of deceased Ashok Kumar at about 11.30 AM. Medical Officer has stated that dead body was brought by the police officials. Medical Officer has further stated that age of the deceased was about 22 years and died about 2/3 days earlier to the post mortem and Medical Officer observed that deceased Ashok Kumar was average build man. Medical Officer has stated that rigor mortis passed from all the four limbs and neck. Medical Officer has further stated that there were multiple incised and lacerated wounds over scalp on the right side in an area about 25x12 cm which were scalp deep and fracture of frontal and parietal bone right side and the protruding brain tissue present. Medical Officer has stated that lacerated wound on back of the neck 20x11 cm size was bone deep and lacerated wound on the front of the neck 12x4 Cm size was muscle deep along with laceration of the left carotid vessels. Medical Officer has stated that lacerated wound on back of the neck 20x11 cm size was bone deep and lacerated wound on the front of the neck 12x4 Cm size was muscle deep along with laceration of the left carotid vessels. Medical Officer has stated that incised wound 19x5 Cm on face started from the right side tip of the nose and extending towards left side. Medical Officer has stated that there were incised wound 5x5 Cm right side of the face reaching up to angle of mouth and incised wound left side of the face 4x5 Cm below the eyebrow. Medical Officer has stated that there were incised wound on right wrist on lateral side 3x2 Cm in size and Goose skin. Both lungs were pale and in the remaining parts of the body nothing abnormal was found. Medical Officer has stated that a sealed bundle containing green coloured sweater, a T-shirt, a black pant, blue underwear and a pair of shoe were handed over to concern police officials. As per opinion of doctor cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries. Medical Officer issued Post-mortem report Ext.PW14/A which was in his hand and bears his signatures. Sampleseal is Ext.PW14/B which also bears his signatures. Medical Officer has stated that injuries No. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are possible with Ext.P3 darat (Sharp edged weapon) from Sharp side and others injuries are possible from blunt side of darat (Sharp edged weapon). In cross examination Medical Officer has stated that pant, T-shirt, Sweater and the pair of shoes were removed by him from the dead body and handed over the same to the police. 9.14. PW15 Isham Singh Forest Guard stated that he was posted as Forest Guard in Timli Range for the last four years and there was no post of Patwari. He has stated that record pertaining to forest area remained in his custody. He has stated that on 2nd March, 2007 police officials of Police Station Paonta Sahib visited his office and asked him to prepare spot map from the forest record and he accordingly prepared map Ext.PW15/A as per the record which bears his signature. 9.15 PW16 Brij Bala has stated that she is a house hold lady. She has stated that her husband had died. 9.15 PW16 Brij Bala has stated that she is a house hold lady. She has stated that her husband had died. She has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar was her son who was running a CD shop near Petrol Pump at Paonta Sahib. She has stated that on 11.1.2007 her son deceased Ashok Kumar had gone to drop her mother at Kolhal on his motor cycle at about 2.30 PM. She has stated that her son dropped her mother at Kolhal and thereafter her son did not return back. She has stated that she inquired about her deceased son in the village and in her relations but she could not trace deceased Ashok Kumar. She has stated that at about 7 PM co-accused Rajesh Kumar came to her house and stated that a telephonic call came to co-accused Rajesh Kumar from the mobile of her deceased son Ashok Kumar from some unknown person. She has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar told her that unknown person intended to talk with her through mobile phone of co- accused Rajesh Kumar. She has further stated that thereafter she talked with unknown person who asked her whether she is mother of deceased Ashok Kumar and on her reply that she is mother of deceased Ashok Kumar unknown person asked her to arrange Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as ransom for release of deceased Ashok Kumar and told her to contact unknown person. She has stated that unknown person further threatened her not to disclose about the matter to the police or any villager otherwise he would kill the deceased Ashok Kumar. She has further stated that on 12.1.2007 police came to her house upon reporting the matter and police official recorded her statement Ext PW16/A. She has further stated that unknown person again telephoned her at 7 PM and asked her whether she had arranged Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) or not. She has stated that she informed the unknown persons that she had arranged Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) and she also requested the unknown person to disclose her time and place to deliver the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. (Ten lacs). She has stated that the police official recorded her telephone version with un-known person through micro cassette and sealed the recorded version. She has stated that thereafter co-accused Ravinder Kumar brought mobile of her son from the field of Hari Ram which was hidden under the soil. (Ten lacs). She has stated that the police official recorded her telephone version with un-known person through micro cassette and sealed the recorded version. She has stated that thereafter co-accused Ravinder Kumar brought mobile of her son from the field of Hari Ram which was hidden under the soil. In cross examination she has stated that Vikas had a quarrel with her son Ashok Kumar and he had threatened to kill him. She has stated that matter was also reported to the police. She has further stated that she had also expressed her suspicion on Vikas about the murder of Ashok Kumar. She has stated that Vikas had two hotels one at Paonta Sahib and another at Kolhal near barrier. She has admitted that after the recovery of dead body of her son from a canal people of Bhatwali and Satiwala became agitated and took out a procession against the police. She has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar was raising slogan against the police. She has denied suggestion that shirt Ext P2 and shoe Ext P1 are not of her deceased son. She also denied suggestion that no telephonic conversation was recorded at her residence by police official through micro cassette. 9.16. PW17 Gurbax Singh has stated that he was posted as Additional SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on dated 12.1.2007 he received a rukka Ext PW16/A in police station through Constable Deep Kumar. He has stated that he put his endorsement on Ext PW16/A. He has further stated that on the basis of Ext PW16/A he recorded FIR Ext PW17/B which bears his signatures. He has stated that he prepared the case file and sent it through Constable Deepak Kumar to the spot. 9.17. PW18 Deepak Kumar has stated that he was posted in Police Station Paonta Sahib since 2006. He has stated that on dated 12.1.2007 SHO Narveer Rathor handed over him rukka Ext PW16/A for the registration of the case and he handed over the same to MHC Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has further stated that after registration of the case he took the case file to the spot and delivered the same to SHO Narveer Singh. 9.18. PW19 Kamlesh Kumar has stated that he was posted as MC at Police Station Paonta Sahib since 2006. He has stated that he brought the summoned record. He has further stated that after registration of the case he took the case file to the spot and delivered the same to SHO Narveer Singh. 9.18. PW19 Kamlesh Kumar has stated that he was posted as MC at Police Station Paonta Sahib since 2006. He has stated that he brought the summoned record. He has stated that the copy of rapat No.14 and 15 dated 12th January, 2007 Ext.PW19/A is original as per the record. In cross examination he denied suggestion that Ext PW19/A were recorded later on. 9.19. PW20 Choli Ram has stated that he was posted as Photographer in Police Line Nahan since 2001. He has stated that on dated 14.1.2007 he went to the spot and took the photographs which are Ext PW20/A1 to Ext PW20/A10. He has stated that on dated 16.1.2007 he took photographs of the blood stained in the bushes at Dhaula Tapad on the side of the road which are Ext PW20/A11 to Ext PW20/A13. He has further stated that on dated 17.1.2007 a mobile phone was recovered at the instance of the co-accused from the field of one Hari Singh near the brick kiln and he took the photographs of the mobile which are Ext PW20/A14 to Ext PW20/16. He has stated that he also took photographs of the pant recovered from the Yamuna River which are Ext PW20/A17 to Ext PW20/A19. He has stated that he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer after developing the same. He has stated that negatives of the same are Ext PW20/A20 to Ext PW20/A38. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that neither mobile nor pant was recovered in his presence. He denied suggestion that photographs were taken after planting recovery of mobile and pant. 9.20 PW21 ASI Raghubir Singh Tomar has stated that he remained posted as MHC Malkhana in Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that he brought malkhana register along with RC. He has stated that on dated 12.1.2007 Inspector Narveer Singh deposited with him four sealed parcels with sample seal of seal impression ‘T’ containing one audio cassette, two sample of blood stained soil and the clothes of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that on dated 17.1.2007 Inspector Narveer Singh again deposited with him two sealed parcel sealed with seal impression ‘T’ and ‘H’ containing pant and a mobile with sample seal. He has stated that on dated 17.1.2007 Inspector Narveer Singh again deposited with him two sealed parcel sealed with seal impression ‘T’ and ‘H’ containing pant and a mobile with sample seal. He has stated that on dated 18.1.2007 Inspector Narveer Singh deposited with him a motor cycle Hero-Honda and also deposited lock and key along with specimen seal impression. He has stated that parcel containing jacket and shoe of co-accused Sher Singh also deposited. He has further stated that a T-shirt, sweater, black pant, underwear blue, black shoe, a pair of shocks and another parcel containing blood stained soils also deposited with him. He has stated that on dated 17.3.2007 Inspector Narveer Singh deposited a parcel containing voice recorded cassette before JMIC Paonta Sahib. He has stated that he sent twelve parcels along with sample seals in the office of FSL Junga. He has stated that parcels remained intact in his custody. 9.21. PW22 Gurdayal Singh has stated that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Paonta Sahib since 2005. He has stated that on dated 23.3.2007 on the request of police official he opened one parcel which was sealed with seal impression ‘H’. He has stated that in the parcel one mobile phone was found which was not having SIM card and battery. He has stated that in his presence the SIM card and battery from the phone of HHC Balbinder Singh was inserted in that phone and two calls were made from the phone of SHO Narveer Singh. He has stated that thereafter the SIM card and battery were removed and the phone was again wrapped in a parcel which was sealed with seal impression ‘W’. 9.22. PW23 Jeeto Devi has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar was her maternal grand-son. She has stated that she went with deceased Ashok Kumar on his motor cycle from Bhatawali to Kulhal Peeth. She has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar dropped her near the barrier and returned back. She has stated that she had gone on motor cycle at about 2.30 PM and after that deceased Ashok Kumar did not return to his house. She has stated that she went with deceased Ashok Kumar on his motor cycle from Bhatawali to Kulhal Peeth. She has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar dropped her near the barrier and returned back. She has stated that she had gone on motor cycle at about 2.30 PM and after that deceased Ashok Kumar did not return to his house. She has stated that she came to know that one Rajesh Kumar came to the house of her daughter and told her daughter that some unknown person was calling from the mobile phone of deceased Ashok Kumar and unknown person wanted to talk with mother of deceased Ashok Kumar. She has stated that caller was demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as a ransom for the release of deceased Ashok Kumar. She has stated that again at about 10 PM one unknown person had given a ring on the mobile of co-accused Rajesh Kumar and demanded sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as ransom for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. She has stated that conversation of unknown person and mother of deceased Ashok Kumar was recorded by the police officials through micro cassette. She has denied suggestion that ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) were demanded for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. She has also denied suggestion that no conversation between mother of deceased and unknown person recorded by police officials through micro cassette. 9.23. PW24 Tribhuvan Rautela has stated that during the year 2007 he was posted as Incharge Police Post Kulhal under Police Station Vikas Nagar Dehradun. He has stated that on dated 14.1.2007 police received information that dead body was found in the Shakti Nahar in village Dhaula Tapad. He has stated that he along with police personnel went to the spot. He has stated that SHO Vikas Nagar had already reached at the spot. He has stated that in the meantime Himachal Police had also reached at the spot. He has stated that body of deceased Ashok Kumar was tied with the motor cycle with the help of rope. He has stated that motor cycle along with dead body were removed from the canal. He has stated that dead body was having cut marks. He has stated that he prepared panchnama at the spot and took two samples of soil and recovery memo was prepared. He has stated that motor cycle along with dead body were removed from the canal. He has stated that dead body was having cut marks. He has stated that he prepared panchnama at the spot and took two samples of soil and recovery memo was prepared. He has stated that he took into possession motor cycle No HP-17A-3289 and pieces of rope by which the dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar was tied with the motor cycle. He has stated that recovery memo Ext PW24/B was prepared. He has further stated that he also collected few drops of blood from the dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that recovery memo Ext PW2/B was prepared. He has stated that seizure memo of blood sample is Ext PW24/C. He has stated that thereafter he sent dead body to CMO Dehradoon after sealing it for post mortem through Constables Rakesh and Jitender Gopal. He has stated that after post mortem he handed over all above articles along with documents to Police Station Paonta Sahib vide letter Ext PW24/H. He has stated that dead body recovered from the canal was the same which shown in photographs Ext PW20/A-1 to ExtPW20/A-19. In cross examination he has stated that dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar was recovered by him and blood was oozing out from the wounds on his head and throat. 9.24 PW25 Ashok Kumar has stated that he is running electrician shop. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar is known to him. He has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar was also performing work of electrician and some time they jointly used to do some electrical works. He has stated that deceased Ashok Kumar had never disclosed anything about deceased Sonika to Rajesh Kumar in his presence. The witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that in the first week of January 2007 deceased Ashok Kumar told to co-accused Rajesh Kumar in his presence that deceased Ashok Kumar knows that co-accused Rajesh Kumar had committed murder of deceased Sonika. He denied suggestion that deceased Ashok Kumar had some altercation at the spot. He denied suggestion that he deposed falsely in order to save co-accused Rajesh Kumar. 9.25. PW26 Sadhu Ram has stated that he was owner of a Tempo (Three Wheeler Auto Riksha) and used it for carrying passengers at Paonta Sahib. He denied suggestion that deceased Ashok Kumar had some altercation at the spot. He denied suggestion that he deposed falsely in order to save co-accused Rajesh Kumar. 9.25. PW26 Sadhu Ram has stated that he was owner of a Tempo (Three Wheeler Auto Riksha) and used it for carrying passengers at Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on dated 11.1.2007 he was coming from Paonta Sahib to Behral. He has stated that at about 5.45 PM he saw deceased Ashok Kumar in vegetable market and he was talking with someone on his mobile phone. He has stated that deceased was sitting on his motor cycle. 9.26. PW27 Rajesh Pandey has stated that he was a proprietor of electronic shop and running his business in the name of Sai Electronics in main market Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on dated 17.3.2007 he had sold two micro-cassettes make Sony to Narveer Singh SHO Paonta Sahib and also issued the bill Ext.PW27/A which bears his signatures. 9.27 PW28 Pardeep Kumar has stated that he was a student of ITI Paonta Sahib. He has stated that about three years ago he along with some other persons was apprentice in a electrical training at Paonta Sahib. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar was also with him. He has stated that in the month of January 2007 he had gone to Mazar with his friends. He has stated that while he was returning he saw co-accused Rajesh Kumar who was driving his motor cycle. He has stated that he said Hello to him but he did not stop his motor cycle and proceeded ahead. 9.28. PW29 Smt Nishtha Trihan has stated that she was working as a Nodal Officer in Reliance Telecom. She has stated that she issued certificate Ext PW29/A pertaining to mobile No.9817174996 to the police and she also handed over call details of said phone which is Ext PW29/B. She has stated that she brought the original record of subscriber enrolment form which is Ext PW29/C. She has stated that above telephone connection was issued in the name of subscriber deceased Ashok Kumar son of Sh.Sahi Ram resident of village Bhatawali Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmour H.P. In cross examination she has admitted that on dated 7th January 2007 and 10th January 2007 deceased Ashok Kumar had made calls on mobile No.9816816208. 9.29 PW30 Dr. 9.29 PW30 Dr. Gian Thakur Assistant Director State FSL Junga has stated that he is M.Sc with M.Phil and Ph.D degrees from H.P. University Shimla. He has stated that he was working as Scientific Officer in Biology and Serology Division of State FSL Junga since March 1998. He has stated that since then he has examined and reported more than 2700 crime cases. He has further stated that in this particular case twelve sealed parcels were received in the laboratory for examination on dated 23.1.2007. He has stated that seals on the parcels were intact and tallied with the specimen seals sent with docket. He has stated that parcels were signed and cut opened. He has further stated that the parcels were deposited in the laboratory by Constable Ram Singh on dated 23.1.2007. He has stated that report Ext PW30/A bears his signatures. He has stated that blood was detected on Pant, T-shirt, Sweater and underwear of deceased Ashok Kumar which was found disintegrated for further examination. He has stated that blood was detected in traces on shoe of deceased Ashok Kumar which was insufficient for further examination. He has further stated that human blood group ‘A’ was detected on the shirt and shoe of deceased Ashok Kumar, shoes of co-accused Rajesh Kumar and pant of co-accused Sher Singh. He has stated that human blood was detected upon blood stained soil and jacket of co-accused Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that blood group was found in conclusive. In cross examination he has admitted that most of the persons are having blood group ‘A’. He has further admitted that in northern India 22% of Human population is of human blood group ‘A’. 9.30 PW31 Devinder Verma has stated that he was working as a Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Limited. He has stated that Anurag Goswami was also working prior to him in the Company. He has stated that he was well conversant with his signature. 9.30 PW31 Devinder Verma has stated that he was working as a Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Limited. He has stated that Anurag Goswami was also working prior to him in the Company. He has stated that he was well conversant with his signature. He has stated that certificate regarding Mobile No.98168-16208 and 98168-20318 were issued by Anurag Goswami which is Ext PW31/A. He has stated that calls details for the month of January 2007 to 15th January 2007 is Ext PW31/B and enrolment form of mobile No.98168162208 is Ext.PW31/C. He has stated that the details of calls were generated under the supervision of Nodal Officer and there is no possibility of any kind of tampering in the details of calls. He has stated that he has also brought original record in regard to details of calls in the Court. In cross examination he has stated that Anurag Goswami did not work with him nor he signed the same in his presence. Self stated that he had left the job and his whereabouts are not known. He has admitted that on 7th January 2007 and 10th January 2007 calls were made from mobile No. 98171-74996 to mobile No. 98168-16208. He has stated that next call between these two numbers took place at 9.29 PM. He has stated that the call duration between these two numbers was 2.47 seconds and another call duration was 1.39 seconds which took place between these numbers from 9.45 PM to 9.51 PM. 9.31. PW32 HC Ram Singh has stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Paonta Sahib from the year 2006. He has stated that on dated 23.1.2007 MHC Raghubir Singh handed over him 12 parcels out of which two parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘H’, four parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘T’ and remaining six parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘TRUAP’ along with sample seal and directed him to deposit the same in FSL Junga. He has stated that he deposited the same vide RC No. 178/07 dated 23.1.2007. He has stated that parcels were not tampered in his custody. He has stated that he deposited the same vide RC No. 178/07 dated 23.1.2007. He has stated that parcels were not tampered in his custody. 9.32 PW33 Sh Pankaj Gupta then Judicial Magistrate Una HP has stated that during his tenure as JMIC Court No.1 Paonta Sahib on 5th March 2007 SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib filed an application for recording of voice of co-accused Sher Singh and co-accused Revinder Kumar for the purpose of comparison. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that application is Ext PW33/A. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that accused persons were asked whether they want to give their specimen voice for the purpose of comparison and both the accused persons vide their separate statements Ext PW33/B and ExtPW33/C respectively stated that they were ready and willing to give specimen of their voice. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that thereafter case was adjourned from 8th March, 2007 to 17th March 2007 and time was granted to the accused persons to re-think. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that on 17th March 2007 co-accused Sher Singh and co-accused Ravinder Kumar were again produced in judicial custody by SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib in continuation of earlier application. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that SHO filed one more application Ext PW33/D alleging that co-accused Sher Singh telephonically talked with Brij Bala mother of deceased on 12.1.2007 and demanded ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) for release of deceased Ashok Kumar and telephonic conversation of co-accused Sher Singh was recorded by SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib. Learned Judicial Magistrate has further stated that along with application SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib also filed transcription in which conversation spoken by co-accused Sher Singh with mother of deceased Ashok Kumar were recorded qua demand of ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. Learned Judicial Magistrate has further stated that SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib prayed for recording voice of accused persons mentioned in the transcription by way of direct speech for comparison purpose. He has stated that copy of transcription in this regard is Ext.PW33/E. He has stated that again on 17th March 2007 accused persons were asked whether they are ready and willing to get their voice recorded by speaking dialogues as mentioned in the transcription. He has stated that copy of transcription in this regard is Ext.PW33/E. He has stated that again on 17th March 2007 accused persons were asked whether they are ready and willing to get their voice recorded by speaking dialogues as mentioned in the transcription. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that it was explained to both the accused persons that they were not bound to give their sample voice and if sample voice given by them would match with the questioned voice same evidence would be used against them. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that accused persons thereafter showed their willingness to give their sample voice through mobile conversation as well as directly by speaking dialogues mentioned in the transcription. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that statements of co-accused Sher Singh Ext.PW33/F and co-accused Ravinder Kumar Ext PW33/B were recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib also produced two micro cassettes and two mobile phones bearing Nos. 94180-78578 and 94181-74477. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib also given statement on oath that he had purchased two micro cassettes of 60 minutes each from Sia Electronic Paonta Sahib. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that he recorded the sample voice of both the accused persons through mobile conversation. Learned Judicial Magistrate has further stated that sample voice of accused persons were directly recorded in cassette No.2. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that thereafter cassette No.1 was sealed in one parcel and cassette No.2 was sealed in another parcel. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that he also sealed the parcels with six seal impression of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Paonta Sahib. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that three impressions of sample of seals were obtained in separate cloth. Learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that cassette No.1 and 2 bears his signatures and same were recorded in his presence which are Ext.P15 and Ext P16. 9.33 PW34 Rakesh Kumar has stated that during the year 2007 he was posted at Police Post Kulhal. He has stated that on dated 14.1.2007 he took the dead body of Ashok Kumar for conducting post mortem to District Hospital Dehradun. He has stated that Investigating Officer Tribhuvan prepared the panchnama of dead body in his presence. He has stated that Medical Officer handed over the clothes of deceased Ashok Kumar and other parcels which he deposited with Police Station. He has stated that Investigating Officer Tribhuvan prepared the panchnama of dead body in his presence. He has stated that Medical Officer handed over the clothes of deceased Ashok Kumar and other parcels which he deposited with Police Station. He has stated that on dated 20.1.2007 SI Tribhuvan Rotela handed over him five parcels which were sealed with seal impression ‘TRUAP’ along with sample seal and he also handed over to him one motor cycle which he deposited with HC Raghubir Singh Incharge Malkhana Paonta Sahib. He has stated that the sample parcels remained in his custody and no one has tampered with the same. 9.34. PW35 Dr. C.P. Singh Assistant Director FSL Delhi has stated that during the year 2007 he was posted as Junior Scientific Officer (Physics) in CFSL Chandigarh. He has stated that on dated 26.3.2007 two sealed parcels were received through Constable Vikas Kalyan in FIR No. 18/07 dated 12.1.2007 in Police Station Paonta Sahib . He has stated that seals were intact and tallied with specimen seals. He has stated that he has qualified M.Sc in Forensic Science from Madras University in 1992 and qualified Ph.D in the area of speaker identification and awarded degree from University of Sagar. He has stated that he has examined about 300 cases involving approximately more than 1000 voice identification test and has appeared as an expert witness in various cases. He has stated that in parcel No.1 audio cassette was received and conversation was recorded. He has stated that the speaker starts with “Ashok Ki Maa Se Baat Kara Jara”. He has stated that in other parcels two micro cassette were received which were containing specimen speech of co-accused Sher Singh and co-accused Ravinder Kumar. He has stated that voice marked Q1 and Ext S-1 are of same person i.e. co-accused Sher Singh. He has stated that voice of co-accused Ravinder Kumar could not be compared as Ext S-2 had insufficient words for analysis. In cross examination he has stated that for the comparison of voice he conducted auditory and spectrograph method on the basis of frequency and intensity of speech signal. He has denied suggestion that science of voice comparison is not a perfect science. 9.35 PW36 Harkesh Singh Arya has stated that during the year 2007 he was posted as Head Mohrar at Police Station Kotwali. He has denied suggestion that science of voice comparison is not a perfect science. 9.35 PW36 Harkesh Singh Arya has stated that during the year 2007 he was posted as Head Mohrar at Police Station Kotwali. He has further stated that rapat No.17 dated 14.1.2007 Ext PW24/I and rapat No.30 dated 14.1.2007 Ext PW36/A are true and correct as per the record brought by him in the Court. 9.36 PW37 Narveer Singh has stated that during the year 2007 he was posted as Investigating Officer at Police Station Paonta Sahib. He has stated that on dated 12.1.2007 while he was on patrolling duty near Walia Petrol Pump Paonta Sahib, Brij Bala got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C which was sent to Police Station for the registration of the case through Constable Deepak Kumar. He has stated that the statement of Brij Bala is Ext PW16/A on the basis of the statement FIR was recorded and after the missing of deceased Ashok Kumar he tried to trace out him. He has stated that he was informed by Brij Bala that she was receiving some telephonic calls from unidentified person demanding ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) for release of deceased Ashok Kumar from the phone which belonged to deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that he along with police personnel went to the house of Brij Bala in order to get conversation tape recorded. He has stated that at about 9.30 PM a telephone call was received on the mobile phone of co-accused Rajesh Kumar which was recorded by him in his personal micro cassette. He has stated that the call was received on mobile Phone No.98168-16208 from mobile No.98171-74996. He has stated that the said cassette was put in a parcel at the spot and was sealed with seal impression ‘T’. He has stated that audio cassette is Ext P18. He has stated that seizure memo was prepared at the spot. He has stated that on the next day they also tried to trace the culprits and deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that he tried to collect the details of both the above phones from service providers. He has stated that on dated 14th January, 2007 information was received from PP Kulahal that dead body was found in the canal. He has stated that on the next day they also tried to trace the culprits and deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that he tried to collect the details of both the above phones from service providers. He has stated that on dated 14th January, 2007 information was received from PP Kulahal that dead body was found in the canal. He has stated that he went to the spot along with police personnel and also intimated the relatives of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that the dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar was recovered in the jurisdiction of Uttranchal Police. He has stated that Uttranchal Police prepared punchnama and completed other formalities at the spot and sent dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar for post mortem. He has stated that dead body was found in the canal which was tied with rope on the motor cycle bearing No HP-17A-3289. He has stated that he took photographs at the spot. He has stated that one Mohan Singh identified the articles of deceased Ashok Kumar. He has stated that he took into possession blood stained soil and blood stained grass from the spot and seizure memo Ext PW1/B was prepared. He has stated that he also took the control sample of soil from the spot and he also prepared the spot map of the recovery. He has stated that call details were also obtained. He has stated that during the interrogation on 16.1.2007 the involvement of co-accused Rajesh Kumar and Sher Singh was proved and they were arrested. He has stated that on the same day co-accused Sher Singh disclosed that he has thrown his pant in a river and could get the same recovered which information was reduced into writing. He has stated that Ext P4 was recovered beneath the bridge. He has stated that pant was blood stained and same was also sealed in parcels. He has stated that he also prepared spot map of recovery of mobile phone and pant. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar has given a disclosure statement to the police that motor cycle which was used by them in the commission of crime was parked by him in his house and he could get it recovered. He has stated that the statement was reduced into writing. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar has given a disclosure statement to the police that motor cycle which was used by them in the commission of crime was parked by him in his house and he could get it recovered. He has stated that the statement was reduced into writing. He has further stated that on 19th January 2007 co-accused Rajesh Kumar disclosed to the police that he could show the place where they have committed the criminal offence and thrown the dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar along with the motor cycle in the canal. He has stated that his statement was reduced into writing. He has stated that co-accused Rajesh Kumar shown the place of occurrence to the police. He has further stated that co-accused Sher Singh also shown the place of occurrence to the police during investigation. He has stated that on dated 19.1.2007 co-accused Sher Singh made a disclosure statement that he could get darat (Sharp edged weapon) recovered from the Shakti Nahar (Canal). He has stated that on the demarcation of the spot police recovered three pieces of key and the same were took into possession and sealed in a parcel with seal impression ‘T’. He has stated that as per the disclosure statement darat Ext P3 was also recovered. He has stated that darat was put in a parcel and spot map Ext PW13/G was also prepared. He has stated that co-accused Sher Singh has also handed over jacket Ext P13 and pair of shoes Ext P14 to the police which were took into possession. He has stated that Brij Bala handed over documents of motor cycle No HP-17A-3289 vide seizure memo Ext PW12/A. He has stated that on dated 17th March 2007 he filed an application before JMIC Paonta Sahib to get the voice of co-accused Sher Singh and co-accused Ravinder Kumar recorded in his presence. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. He has stated that he prepared the challan and also prepared supplementary challan after receipt of FSL report. In cross examination he has stated that he did not receive any information about the missing of the deceased prior to the statement given by Brij Bala mother of deceased on 12th January 2007. He has stated that he prepared the challan and also prepared supplementary challan after receipt of FSL report. In cross examination he has stated that he did not receive any information about the missing of the deceased prior to the statement given by Brij Bala mother of deceased on 12th January 2007. He has stated that after recording statement of Brij Bala mother of deceased under Section 154 Cr P.C. he left from the petrol pump and conducted search of the deceased in the local area of Paonta Sahib including Badri Nagar, Bhatawali, Paonta Sahib and other localities. He has stated that after search he went to the house of Brij Bala mother of deceased at 9.30 PM. He has stated that he was expecting some calls from abductor on the mobile of co-accused Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that when he reached house of mother of deceased co-accused Rajesh Kumar was already present there. He has further stated that when he reached the house of Brij Bala mother of deceased call was received from co-accused Sher Singh on the mobile phone of co-accused Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that he recorded conversation took place between mother of deceased and co-accused sher Singh through micro cassette. He has stated that he sealed the cassette of the conversation immediately at the residence of Brij Bala mother of deceased. He has stated that as per the investigation motive of murder of deceased Ashok Kumar was to receive ransom and also to remove him as he had the knowledge that co-accused Rajesh Kumar had committed murder of deceased Sonika. He has stated that he also inspected place of incident. He has stated that shirt and shoe were lying at a distance of about 10 feet from each other. He has stated that co-accused Sher Singh and co-accused Rajesh Kumar were arrested simultaneously and they were intensively interrogated. He has stated that from the investigation it was found that only co-accused Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Sher Singh went to Dhaula Tapad with the deceased and killed him. He has denied suggestion that all the disclosure statements of the accused persons and the recoveries were falsely manipulated by him. He has denied suggestion that signatures of the accused persons were obtained on the disclosure statement forcibly. He denied suggestion that he has involved the accused persons falsely in the present case. 10. He has denied suggestion that all the disclosure statements of the accused persons and the recoveries were falsely manipulated by him. He has denied suggestion that signatures of the accused persons were obtained on the disclosure statement forcibly. He denied suggestion that he has involved the accused persons falsely in the present case. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that present case is based upon circumstantial evidence and complete chain of circumstantial evidence is not proved against both the appellants namely Sher Singh and Rajesh Kumar is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that circumstantial evidence combine all facts creating a net through which accused could not escape. In order to convict the accused on the circumstantial evidence prosecution is under legal obligation to prove (i) That circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved (ii) That circumstances should be conclusive in nature (iii) That all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of accused (iv) That circumstance should to a moral certainty exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. (See AIR 1992 SC Court 2045 titled State of U.P. vs. Dr. (See AIR 1992 SC Court 2045 titled State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, See AIR 1952 SC 343 Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 2010 SC 762 titled Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 2009 SC 56 titled Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs. State of Maharashtra, See AIR 1979 SC 1410 titled State of Maharashtra vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage, See AIR 1979 SC 826 titled S.P. Bhatnagar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra, See AIR 1989 SC 1890 titled Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 1992 SC 758 titled Sakharam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 1975 SC 241 titled Dharm Das Wadhwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, See AIR 1954 SC 621 titled Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab.) It is also well settled law that in order to convict the accused in circumstantial evidence five golden principles should be proved (i) That circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and the accused must be and not merely may be guilty (ii) That facts so established should be consistent only with guilt of the accused (iii) That circumstances should be of a conclusive nature. (iv) That chain of evidence should be complete (v) That innocence of accused should be ruled out. (See 2013 Cri.L.J. 2040, titled Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (Apex Court DB). Proved circumstantial evidence No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In present case it is proved on record that on dated 11.1.2007 deceased Ashok Kumar aged 22 years went to drop his maternal grandmother to Kulhal on his motor cycle at about 2.30 PM but after dropping her at Kulhal deceased did not return back to his home and at about 7 PM co-accused Rajesh Kumar came to the house of Brij Bala mother of deceased and told mother of deceased that he had received a telephonic call on his mobile from unknown person. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar told the mother of deceased that unknown person wanted to talk to the mother of deceased. Thereafter mother of deceased talked with unknown person through mobile phone of co-accused Rajesh Kumar. Unknown person asked mother of deceased to arrange Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as ransom for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar told the mother of deceased that unknown person wanted to talk to the mother of deceased. Thereafter mother of deceased talked with unknown person through mobile phone of co-accused Rajesh Kumar. Unknown person asked mother of deceased to arrange Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as ransom for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. It is proved on record that co-accused Rajesh Kumar is neighbourer of deceased Ashok Kumar. It is proved on record that thereafter unknown person again conducted mobile call from the mobile phone of deceased to co-accused Rajesh Kumar and thereafter co-accused Rajesh Kumar had given his mobile phone to the mother of deceased for conversation with unknown person. It is proved on record that unknown person was co-accused Sher Singh who demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as ransom for release of deceased Ashok Kumar and also told that in case ransom was not paid then deceased would be killed. PW16 Brij Bala has stated in positive manner that on 12th January, 2007 at about 7 PM she again received telephone call and she was inquired whether she had arranged ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) for release of deceased Ashok Kumar and she replied that she arranged ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) and asked the abductor to tell her time and place for payment of ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. It is proved on record that conversation of unknown person with Brij Bala was recorded by way of micro tape recorder. Even statement of PW16 is proved by way of corroborative evidence of PW23 Jeeto Devi who has stated that deceased went to drop her on motorcycle and at about 2.30 PM after dropping her deceased returned back to his home but deceased did not reach in his home and in the evening co-accused Rajesh Kumar came to the residential house of mother of deceased and informed her that some unknown person was demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as ransom for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. The fact that co-accused Rajesh Kumar came to the residential house of mother of deceased and told that some unknown person had called him upon his mobile and told him to contact the mother of deceased is proved on record. The fact that co-accused Rajesh Kumar came to the residential house of mother of deceased and told that some unknown person had called him upon his mobile and told him to contact the mother of deceased is proved on record. Even co-accused Rajesh Kumar in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has admitted the g77 fact that he had received the telephone call from unknown person from the telephone of deceased and thereafter he went to the mother of deceased and informed the fact of telephone call received by him from unknown person. It is proved on record that conversation of co-accused Sher Singh and mother of deceased was recorded in micro tape recorder and transcription of conversation so recorded is also proved on record by way of document Ext.PW13/A placed on record. Even on the basis of medical evidence on record, it is proved on record that deceased did not die due to natural death but his death was homicidal. The post mortem report of deceased in positive, cogent and reliable manner proves that deceased had sustained seven injuries i.e. (1) multiple incised and lacerated wounds over scalp on the right side in an area about 25x12 cm which were scalp deep and fracture of frontal and parietal bone right side and the protruding brain tissue was present (2) lacerated wound on back of the neck 20x11 cm size which was bone deep (3) lacerated wound on the front of the neck 12x4 Cm size which was mussle deep along with laceration of the left carotid vessels (4) Incised wound 19x5 Cm on face started from the right side tip of the nose and extending towards left side (5) Incised wound 5x5 Cm right side of the face reaching upto angle of mouth (6) Incised wound left side of the face 4x5 Cm below the eyebrow (7) Incised wound on right writ on lateral side 3x2 Cm size. It is also proved on record that co-accused Rajesh approached Brij Bala PW16 mother of deceased on 11.1.2007 at about 7 PM and told that he has received telephone call from the mobile of deceased and it is proved on record that thereafter mother of the deceased also had a talk with some unknown person from the mobile of the accused Rajesh Kumar and unknown person demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as ransom. It is also proved on record that thereafter a telephone call was again received on the mobile phone of co-accused Rajesh Kumar from the abductor enquiring the mother of deceased whether she had arranged ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) or not. It is proved on record that it is co-accused Rajesh Kumar who had informed mother of deceased that he had received the call from the unknown person. It is proved on record that unknown person was familiar with mobile number of co-accused Rajesh Kumar and he was frequently calling co-accused Rajesh Kumar. Even call details of mobile phone placed on record proved that calls from the mobile of deceased were made on the mobile phone of co-accused Rajesh Kumar. It is proved on record that co-accused Rajesh Kumar was continuously receiving calls from the mobile of deceased which was being used by abductor for purpose of demanding ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. The perusal of call details of mobile Ext.PW31/A clearly proved that abductor and co-accused Rajesh Kumar have direct connection and nexus qua the commission of offence. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar did not file any FIR qua the fact that he had received telephone call from unknown person. No reason has been assigned by co-accused Rajesh Kumar as to why he did not file any criminal complaint in police station qua receiving regular telephone calls from an unidentified person. As per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 previous conduct and subsequent conduct of accused person are relevant facts. Hence in present case previous conduct and subsequent conduct of co-accused Rajesh Kumar for not recording FIR in Police Station qua receiving frequent telephone calls from an unidentified person clearly proves that co-accused Rajesh Kumar was in nexus with co-accused Sher Singh who had conducted frequent mobile phone calls upon the mobile telephone number of co-accused Rajesh Kumar for demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as ransom for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. Proved circumstantial evidence No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Proved circumstantial evidence No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. 12. It is proved on record that voice samples of co-accused Sher Singh was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate for comparison and it is also proved on record that the micro tape cassette voice wherein voice of abductor demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) recorded and voice of co-accused Sher Singh recorded before the Judicial Magistrate were sent for comparison to CFSL Chandigarh and Dr. C.P. Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that voice of co-accused Sher Singh recorded in micro cassette demanding ransom of Rs. Ten lacs and voice of co-accused Sher Singh recorded before Judicial Magistrate tally with each other. Hence it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that it is only co-accused Sher Singh who had conducted telephone calls from the mobile of deceased and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as ransom for release of deceased from the mother of deceased. Sher Singh accused did not adduce any rebuttal evidence and testimony of PW35 Dr. C.P. Singh Assistant Director (Physics) Delhi remained unrebutted on record. Accused Sher Singh did not adduce any positive, cogent and reliable evidence in rebuttal in order to prove that his voice recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate and his voice recorded in micro cassette demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) from the mother of deceased did not tally. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that immediately thereafter dead body of deceased was found tied upon motor cycle with rope. Involvement of any third person in the murder of deceased is not proved on record. There is no possibility of intervention of any another person in the commission of criminal offence in the present case. Proved circumstantial evidence No. III beyond reasonable doubt:- 13. Even the prosecution has proved the disclosure statement Ext.PW2/B given by co-accused Sher Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 by which recovery of blood stained pant which was thrown in Yamuna River was effected. Even prosecution also proved the disclosure statement given by co-accused Sher Singh qua recovery of darat (Sharp edged weapon) used in the murder of deceased vide document Ext.PW3/D placed on record. Even as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Rajesh Kumar the motor cycle was also recovered vide document Ext.PW6/B placed on record. Even prosecution also proved the disclosure statement given by co-accused Sher Singh qua recovery of darat (Sharp edged weapon) used in the murder of deceased vide document Ext.PW3/D placed on record. Even as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Rajesh Kumar the motor cycle was also recovered vide document Ext.PW6/B placed on record. Even disclosure statement of co-accused Rajesh Kumar recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Ext.PW9/B is proved qua the fact that dead body of Ashok Kumar tied along with motor cycle No. HP-17A-3289 and thrown in Shakti Nahar. Even disclosure statement given by co-accused Sher Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act Ext.PW9/C also proved on record the place where dead body of deceased was thrown by accused persons. Even recoveries of blood stained shirt and shoes, blood stained soil, blood stained darat (Sharp edged weapon), pant, motor cycle, three keys, rope, jacket and shoes in pursuant to disclosure statements given by accused persons are proved on record. It is well settled law that recovery proved in pursuant to disclosure statements given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is relevant fact and if linked to crime, the same should be treated as piece of incriminating evidence against accused persons. It is well settled law that statements falling within the provisions of Sections 32 (1) and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are exception to embargo as provided under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (See AIR 1980 SC 873 titled Hazari Lal vs. The State (Delhi Admn.). Even photographs placed on record along with negatives also prove the commission of crime by accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that appellant had given statement to the police regarding the spot on 19.1.2007 whereas the place was already known to Investigating Officer PW27, hence disclosure statements became doubtful is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that as per disclosure statements given by appellants Sher Singh and Rajesh Kumar the recovery was effected. It is well settled law that disclosure statement given by accused is relevant only after the recovery is effected. Prior to 19th January 2007 there was no recovery effected by the prosecution. It is proved on record that as per disclosure statements given by appellants Sher Singh and Rajesh Kumar the recovery was effected. It is well settled law that disclosure statement given by accused is relevant only after the recovery is effected. Prior to 19th January 2007 there was no recovery effected by the prosecution. Hence it is held that recovery effected in pursuance of disclosure statement of appellants Sher Singh and Rajesh Kumar are relevant fact in the present case. 15. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that although prosecution examined 37 witnesses but abduction of deceased is not proved on record on the part of co-appellant Rajesh Kumar is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that telephone call of co-accused Sher Singh came upon the mobile phone of appellant Rajesh Kumar continuously wherein appellant Sher Singh had demanded ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) for release of deceased Ashok Kumar. It is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that both the appellants were continuously in touch with each other by way of mobile phone as per details of mobile telephone calls proved on record by the prosecution. No reason has been assigned by co-appellant Rajesh Kumar as to why co-appellant Rajesh remained in continuous touch with co-accused Sher Singh after the abduction of deceased Ashok Kumar aged 22 years. Even motive against the appellants is proved on record qua commission of crime because it is proved on record that deceased had informed appellant Rajesh Kumar that he had knowledge about the fact that appellant Rajesh Kumar had committed the murder of Sonika and another motive was to receive ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. ten lacs only) and to kill the deceased in order to extinguish the oral evidence of murder of deceased Sonika. It is proved on record that simultaneously two murders took place within a short span of time i.e. murder of Sonika and murder of deceased Ashok Kumar. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that recovery of jacket and shoes Ext.P11 and Ext.P12 in presence of PW13 is not proved on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that recovery of jacket and shoes Ext.P11 and Ext.P12 in presence of PW13 is not proved on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW13 has stated in positive manner that accused Rajesh and Sher Singh have handed over the jacket and shoes which were blood stained to the police officials. It is well settled law that testimony of the witness should not be read in isolation but should be read as a whole. PW13 has specifically stated in positive manner that accused persons Rajesh and Sher Singh have handed over the jacket and shoes which were blood stained to the police officials in his presence. Hence testimony of PW13 that accused Rajesh and Sher Singh have handed over the jacket and shoes which were blood stained to the police is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that dead body of the deceased was found on 14th January, 2007 and post mortem report shows that death took place six hours back and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per post mortem report Ext.PW14/A placed on record the deceased had died due to anti-mortem hemorrhage and shock. The post mortem was conducted at Dehradun on 15th January, 2007 at 11-30 AM. The age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of death and deceased was in his prime age. Time and date of death of deceased could not be traced because present case is case of abduction of deceased for ransom of Rs. Ten lacs and present case is based upon circumstantial evidence and is not based upon eye witness wherein date and time of murder should be specifically stated. It is well settled law that abductor could kill the deceased at any point of time because deceased was in personal custody of abductor at the time of his death and ransom was not paid by relative of deceased to abductor. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that mobile of the deceased was not recovered is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that mobile of the deceased was not recovered is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that mobile of the deceased was recovered and same was identified by mother of deceased. It is also proved on record that mobile of deceased was recovered as per the disclosure statement. No explanation has been given by accused as to how the mobile was recovered as per the disclosure statement given by accused. Recovery of mobile of deceased as per disclosure statement is incriminating chain of circumstances against the appellants. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that prosecution did not make Vikas as accused who prior to the incident had threatened the deceased and who was having inimical relations with deceased is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case it is proved on record that co-accused Sher Singh has contacted the telephone calls to the mother of deceased through co-accused Rajesh and Rajesh himself voluntarily went to the residential house of mother of deceased and informed the mother of deceased that he had received the telephone call from some unidentified person and this unidentified person had directed him to contact the mother of deceased. Thereafter co-accused Rajesh immediately contacted mother of deceased and it is proved on record that thereafter mother of deceased had a conversation with co-accused Sher Singh and it is also proved on record that co-accused Sher Singh demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as ransom and also threatened that he would kill the deceased if ransom is not paid to him. It is proved on record that ransom was not paid to co-accused Sher Singh. Voice test of co-accused Sher Singh was also conducted before the Judicial Magistrate and voice test of co-accused Sher Singh tallied with voice of telephone call conducted to the mother of deceased at the time of demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as ransom from the telephone of deceased. Nexus of co-accused Sher Singh and co-accused Rajesh Kumar proved on record in present case beyond reasonable doubt by way of a complete chain of circumstances. Nexus of co-accused Sher Singh and co-accused Rajesh Kumar proved on record in present case beyond reasonable doubt by way of a complete chain of circumstances. It is well settled law that chain of circumstances should be proved individually against the accused persons qua the commission of criminal offence. There is no evidence on record against Vikas qua commission of murder of deceased aged 22 years. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that there is no evidence on record that Smt. Brij Bala was having sufficient means to arrange an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) rather on the contrary it is on record that the deceased was running a CD shop and therefore the entire story put forth by prosecution is false and cannot be believed at all is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that co-accused Sher Singh had contacted telephone call through mobile telephone of deceased aged 22 years and demanded ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) and threatened mother of deceased that he would kill the deceased in case ransom is not paid. It is proved on record that voice of Sher Singh was recorded when he was talking with the mother of deceased and when he was demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as ransom. It is proved on record that voice of caller conducted through mobile phone of deceased to the mother of deceased was recorded upon micro cassette and voice of co-accused Sher Singh was also recorded before the Judicial Magistrate and both voices recorder were sent for comparison in the office of CFSL, Chandigarh and it is proved on record by way of testimony of PW35 Dr. C.P. Singh Assistant Director (Physics) FSL Delhi that voice of co-accused Sher Singh Mark Q1 and voice of Sher Singh S1 tallied with each other and is of the same person. Hence it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Sher Singh had conducted mobile calls from the mobile of deceased to the mother of deceased and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as ransom. Hence it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Sher Singh had conducted mobile calls from the mobile of deceased to the mother of deceased and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as ransom. It is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sher Singh had threatened the mother of deceased that if the money of ransom would not be paid then he would kill the deceased and it is also proved on record that mother of the deceased could not arrange the ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) and it is proved on record that thereafter deceased aged 22 years was killed with Sharp edged weapon i.e. Darat and his dead body was tied with a rope upon motorcycle and thereafter the dead body along with motorcycle was thrown into a canal by the appellants. Appellant Sher Singh did not adduce any rebuttal evidence on the testimony and report of PW35 that voice Q1 and voice S1 does not tally with each other. Testimony and report of PW25 are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court qua voice test of co-accused Sher Singh. 21. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that in present case two views are possible and view favourable to accused should be adopted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case there are no two views but only one view is proved that appellants Sher Singh and Rajesh Kumar have nexus with each other qua the commission of criminal offence and it is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Sher Singh has contacted telephone call upon the mobile of co-accused Rajesh Kumar and directed coaccused Rajesh Kumar to immediately contact the mother of deceased. It is proved on record that Rajesh Kumar was neighbourer of mother of deceased and he immediately contacted the mother of deceased and informed the mother of deceased that he had received a telephone call from an unidentified person demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) as ransom in lieu of release of deceased. The connectivity and nexus of accused Sher Singh and accused Rajesh Kumar proved on record by way of details of continue telephone calls placed on record after the abduction of deceased. The connectivity and nexus of accused Sher Singh and accused Rajesh Kumar proved on record by way of details of continue telephone calls placed on record after the abduction of deceased. The continue talk of co-accused Rajesh Kumar with accused Sher Singh after the abduction of deceased by way of telephone calls placed on record remains unrebutted. There is no evidence on record to prove that there is involvement of some other persons in the commission of offence of murder of deceased aged 22 years in the present case. 22. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that since co-accused Ravinder Kumar has been acquitted by learned trial Court and accused Rajesh Kumar and Sher Singh have also been acquitted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and chain of circumstances is broken hence on this ground appellants Rajesh Kumar and Sher Singh be also acquitted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that chain of circumstances against accused persons should be proved individually and should not be proved collectively. In present case chain of circumstances against co-accused Rajesh Kumar and Sher Singh is proved individually without any reasonable doubt by way of telephone call details, by way of report of sample voice, by way of disclosure statements and by way of recoveries effected in pursuance of disclosure statements given by co-accused Sher Singh and Rajesh Kumar. 23. In view of above stated findings, we are of the considered view that learned trial Court has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by prosecution. We hold that judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is not perverse, nor illegal and norerroneous and is not based upon incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. In view of the above findings, both the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 560 of 2008 titled Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2008, titled Sher Singh @ Kalu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh are dismissed being devoid of any force. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of. 24. Certified copy of this judgment be placed on record in Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2008, titled Sher Singh @ Kalu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of. 24. Certified copy of this judgment be placed on record in Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2008, titled Sher Singh @ Kalu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. Record of learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.