JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Birbal Meena was in the possession of Bolero SUV (Sports Utility Vehicle) bearing Registration No. RJ 14 UA 4770. Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Subhash Sharma, Kailash @ Deewana and Vinod Kumar @ Dholya were last seen travelling in the said Bolero vehicle along with Birbal Meena. The case of the prosecution is that to commit robbery of the said Bolero vehicle, the above said four accused on the intervening night of 8th and 9th of October, 2006, committed murder of Birbal Meena by causing injury on his head, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is the further case of the prosecution that after committing murder of Birbal Meena, the accused have thrown his dead body in the ditch (Khai) in the revenue state of village Gadi Johara Bada falling within the jurisdiction of Ringas and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 2. Since the appellants have also forcibly taken away the Bolero vehicle belonging to the deceased Birbal Meena, they were tried for the offence under Section 392/34 IPC and also under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'SC/ST Act'). 3. The court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar, vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.2008 acquitted Vinod Kumar @ Dholiya Gurjar, respondent No.1 in Appeal No. 707/2009 but held the accused Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Subhash Sharma and Kailash @ Deewana guilty of offence under Sections 302, 201, 392/34 IPC and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. Since Anandi Lal @ Nanda himself belonged to SC/ST Act, he was acquitted for the offence under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act but was convicted for the offences under Sections 302/201 and 392/34 IPC. The trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellants for the aforesaid offences as under:- U/s 302 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months R.I. U/s 392/34 IPC- to undergo ten years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months R.I. U/s 201 IPC- to undergo three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months R.I. U/s 392/34 IPC- to undergo ten years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months R.I. U/s 201 IPC- to undergo three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month R.I. U/s 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months R.I. 4. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Anandi Lal @ Nanda has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1280/2008, Subhash Sharma has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1281/2008 and Kailash @ Deewana has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 114/2009. The State of Rajasthan was equally aggrieved against the acquittal of Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar and has preferred the State Appeal which was assigned docket number D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 707/2009. Thus, three accused, namely Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Subhash Sharma and Kailash @ Deewana have filed separate appeals challenging their conviction and sentence, whereas State has preferred the appeal praying that acquittal of Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar be set aside. Since in all the appeals, common judgment has been assailed, we shall decide all the appeals together. 5. In the present case, the criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/9) submitted by Sita Ram (P.W.10) before S.I. Babu Lal (P.W.26), who was then posted as Incharge of Police Station Srimadhopur. 6. Sita Ram (P.W.10) in the written report (Exhibit- P/9) stated that on 9.10.2006, at about 9:00 AM, in the morning, he was going towards Arniya. While passing through Gadi Johara Bada, then in a ditch he found a dead body of unidentified person. On the said dead body, there was injury on the head from which blood was oozing out and there was an injury on the face also. There was a ligature mark around the neck and one green colour Lungi was tied around the neck. Sita Ram in his written report expressed his suspicion that some unknown person after causing injury on the head, strangulated the unidentified person to the death, and had thrown his dead body into the ditch. There was a ligature mark around the neck and one green colour Lungi was tied around the neck. Sita Ram in his written report expressed his suspicion that some unknown person after causing injury on the head, strangulated the unidentified person to the death, and had thrown his dead body into the ditch. Along with the dead body a slip was lying in which, number of Prem Meena was written and after inquiry, it was found that the dead body was of Birbal Meena S/o Jita @ Ranjeeta Meena, R/o Nijhara, Police Station Pratapgarh. Sita Ram further stated in the written report that some unidentified person had committed the murder. 7. On the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/9), a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/48) bearing No. 245/06 was registered at Police Station Srimadhopur, District Sikar. On the basis of the slip found from the dead body on which name and mobile number of Prem Meena was inscribed, investigating agency contacted Prem Meena @ Virendra Kumar (P.W.4) and recorded his statement. 8. Virendra Kumar @ Prem Meena (P.W.4) attested the inquest and identified the dead body to be of Birbal Meena. This witness while appearing in the court stated that he knew Birbal Meena. This witness is engaged in Insurance and Finance. This witness stated that twenty days before 9.10.2006, Birbal Meena had come to him for insurance and finance of the vehicle. He had come along with white Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 14 UA 4770. This witness had given slip to Birbal Meena after writing his name and mobile number. On 9.10.2006, at 12:00 noon, he received a telephonic call from Ringas Police Station. He reached at the police station from where police party took him to the place where dead body was lying. He saw the dead body and identified the same to be of Birbal Meena and had attested the inquest. Thereafter, the police recorded the statement of Lekhraj (P.W.3). 9. Thereafter, the autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. D.P. Rawat (P.W.2) member of the Medical Board, who was posted as Medical Officer at Srimadhopur. This witness proved the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/2) and had proved following injuries on the person of Birbal Meena:- (i) Lacerated wound, 6x1.5x.5cm, left frontoparietal region, obliquely placed. (ii) Bruise 8cm x 3cm, right temporal region. (iii) Diffused swelling, right angle of right mandible. D.P. Rawat (P.W.2) member of the Medical Board, who was posted as Medical Officer at Srimadhopur. This witness proved the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/2) and had proved following injuries on the person of Birbal Meena:- (i) Lacerated wound, 6x1.5x.5cm, left frontoparietal region, obliquely placed. (ii) Bruise 8cm x 3cm, right temporal region. (iii) Diffused swelling, right angle of right mandible. (1) A blood clot, 10x4cm x 0.5cm, present on the subscalp of left brain. (2) A blood clot, 8x5cm 0.5cm, present on right side surface of brain. (v) Bruise- 5x3cm on right mastoid region. (vi) Multiple Small Abrasions- size varies from 0.2x0.1 cm to 0.5x0.2cm on ant.fold of left axilla, 8cm x 5cm. (vii) Abrasion 2cm x 1cm, dorsal aspect of wrist. Ligature mark on neck:- A ligature mark is present anteriorly on cricoid cartilage and running on both side obliquely upward around the neck and reaching to back of neck 2cm below present hair line. There is no mark of knot the width of ligature mark varies in between 1cm to 1.5cm and the length is 32 cm. Mark is grooved and base is permanent like and margins are bruised." 10. As per opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was Coma associated with Asphyxia due to head injury and strangulation. 11. The Medical Board had found seven injuries on the dead body of Birbal Meena and ligature mark around the neck. The injury No.1 was lacerated wound having dimension of 1.5cm x .5cm on the left fronto-parietal region obliquely placed. 12. During investigation, Lekhraj (P.W.3) disclosed that all the four accused were last seen with the deceased and they had travelled along with Birbal Meena in the Bolero vehicle of which robbery was committed. Lekhraj (P.W.3) stepped into witness box and stated that he knew the accused Subhash Sharma, Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar, Kailash @ Deewana and Anandi Lal @ Nanda. However, stated that he was residing in Alwar Naya Baas and was studying. On 7.10.2006, in the afternoon, Birbal Meena s/o Ranjeeta Meena came to this witness and stated that yesterday he had come to him for repairing the vehicle. Then they took the vehicle to the workshop of company. On the night of 7.10.2006, Birbal Meena slept in his room. On 8.10.2006, in the afternoon, they had gone to take the said vehicle from the company. Then they took the vehicle to the workshop of company. On the night of 7.10.2006, Birbal Meena slept in his room. On 8.10.2006, in the afternoon, they had gone to take the said vehicle from the company. On the way Kailash @ Deewana and Subhash Sharma met Birbal Meena and they sat in the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by Kailash @ Deewana. They reached near old RTO office where Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar and Anandi Lal @ Nanda met them and they also boarded the vehicle. This witness (P.W.3) alighted near Kala Kua, Alwar and Birbal Meena along with all the four accused proceeded towards the village of Birbal Meena. On 9.10.2006, this witness called the family members of Birbal Meena and the phone was received by Rajendra brother of the deceased, Birbal Meena. This witness was informed that Birbal Meena had not reached home. Thus, the prosecution had examined Lekhraj (P.W.3) as witness of the last seen. 13. Bhagirath (P.W.18) has been also examined by the prosecution. This witness stated that on 8.10.2006, he was working at Magazine (a place where dynamite belonging to mines are stored). In the night of 8th October, 2006, at about 8:00 PM, one Bolero vehicle came from which Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Subhash Sharma, Kailash @ Deewana and Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar alighted. This witness stated that he knew the accused and he can identify the accused present in the court. These persons had visited him and informed that they had come from Alwar. After staying for sometime, they left for Chandwaji. 14. In the present case, the prosecution in all had examined twenty-eight witnesses. 15. Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) testified in the court that on 8.10.2006 in the night at about 12:00/12:30, he was sleeping in his house, when Subhash Sharma, Deewana, Anandi Lal @ Nanda along with one another person came to his house. This witness stated that he cannot identify the fourth person. They were having a Bolero vehicle which was brought by Subhash Sharma, Deewana, Anandi Lal @ Nanda and the fourth person. The number of vehicle was RJ 14 UA 4770. Subhash Sharma informed that the vehicle belonged to Anandi Lal @ Nanda and finance people are after him to take possession of the vehicle, as installments of the loan have not been paid. The number of vehicle was RJ 14 UA 4770. Subhash Sharma informed that the vehicle belonged to Anandi Lal @ Nanda and finance people are after him to take possession of the vehicle, as installments of the loan have not been paid. They requested Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) to park the vehicle and further asked him to drop them in his vehicle. Upon which, Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) stated that his vehicle, which is with him, is in partnership with Dashrath Saini (P.W.6). Then along with Bolero vehicle, they went to Dashrath Saini (P.W.6). They woke Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) and Subhash Sharma told Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) that his friend Anandi Lal @ Nanda got the vehicle financed and now finance people intend to repossess the vehicle. Therefore, after the vehicle is parked, accused be dropped at Thana Gaji. This witness stated that after Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) had agreed, in the vehicle belonging to the witnesses, they gave lift to Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Deewana, Subhash Sharma and another fourth person and after passing through Ganeshwar, reached at Sanwalpura, where Dashrath started driving. When they reached near Tiraha of Alwar, police party stopped their vehicle. On inquiry made by police, they informed that they are coming from Ganeshwar. Deewana alighted from the vehicle and had talked with police official. After the papers of the vehicle were shown, they were permitted to proceed by the police. 16. Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) has corroborated the testimony of Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5). 17. ASI, Bhawani Singh (P.W.22) stated in the court that in the month of October, 2006, he was posted at Police Station Virat Nagar. He was holding a Nakabandi. This witness (P.W.22) had checked the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR 55C 8899. The driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name as Dashrath Saini. In the said vehicle, six people were travelling. In that vehicle, one Kailash resident of his village was also present. When this witness was checking the vehicle, Kailash came out of the vehicle and introduced himself and stated that he is resident of the village of police officer. Thereafter, the accused had proceeded ahead. 18. In the said vehicle, six people were travelling. In that vehicle, one Kailash resident of his village was also present. When this witness was checking the vehicle, Kailash came out of the vehicle and introduced himself and stated that he is resident of the village of police officer. Thereafter, the accused had proceeded ahead. 18. Thus, the prosecution by examining Lekhraj (P.W.3) had not only proved the evidence of last seen, but also has proved on record the fact that after Lekhraj (P.W.3) had seen all the four accused along with the deceased Birbal Meena, in the vehicle, immediately thereafter all the four accused in vehicle had met Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5). At that time, deceased Birbal Meena was not with them. Thereafter, on the intervening night Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) introduced the accused to Dashrath Saini (P.W.6), and after parking the vehicle of which robbery was committed they proceeded to Thana Gaji. On the way vehicle was stopped by police party holding Nakabandi and the time of checking the vehicle, the accused Kailash @ Deewana befriended ASI Bhawani Singh (P.W.22) and informed him that he belonged to his village. 19. Thereafter, the accused have not only got recovered the Bolero vehicle which belonged to the deceased Birbal Meena, but have also got effected the recovery of various articles from which their involvement in the crime is discernible. 20. Having dealt with the evidence of last seen, and the accused seen with the vehicle immediately after the occurrence, without the person to whom the vehicle belonged we shall have a quick glance over the evidence of remaining witnesses, before we deal with the recoveries effected at the instance of the accused. 21. Lahari (P.W.1) had received the dead body vide memo Exhibit-P/1. 22. Banwari Lal Yadav (P.W.7) stated that on 9.10.2006, ladies of the house had gone to ease themselves in jungle and when they came they informed that a dead body was lying in a trench. Lot of people had gathered there. The dead body was having injury on the head. There was a ligature mark. The police arrived at the spot. This witness further stated that he is not aware as to which witness has told the name of which accused. 23. Murli Dhar Yadav (P.W.8) had prepared the site plan (Exhibit-P/6) of the spot. 24. The dead body was having injury on the head. There was a ligature mark. The police arrived at the spot. This witness further stated that he is not aware as to which witness has told the name of which accused. 23. Murli Dhar Yadav (P.W.8) had prepared the site plan (Exhibit-P/6) of the spot. 24. Kalu Ram Yadav (P.W.11) stated that in his presence photographs of the dead body were taken. This witness further stated that on 14.10.2006, in his presence, Kailash @ Deewana and Anandi Lal @ Nanda were arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/14 and Exhibit-P/15, respectively. 25. Nathu Ram (P.W.12) who was witness to the recovery effected from the accused Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar, had turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that he had not signed the memo Exhibit-P/16 and Exhibit-P/17. This witness stated that police had obtained his signatures on Exhibit-P/16 and Exhibit-P/17 but he has not read those documents. It will be pertinent to mention here that vide Exhibit-P/16 one seat belt and vide memo Exhibit-P/17 one rubber mat of Bolero vehicle were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar. 26. Prabhu Dayal (P.W.13) is also another attesting witness to the seizure memo Exhibit-P/16 and Exhibit-P/17 and the site plan Exhibit-P/18 and Exhibit-P/19, of place from where the recovery were effected from the accused Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar. This witness (P.W.13) has also turned hostile to the prosecution case. 27. Mukund Singh (P.W.14) had taken photographs of the spot and the dead body. This witness further stated that five days after the occurrence, he had taken photographs of Bolero vehicle in police station Srimadhopur. This witness proved the photographs of Bolero vehicle as Exhibit-P/27 and Exhibit-P/28 and negative thereof as Exhibit-P/29. 28. Ram Sahai (P.W.15) in the court stated that Subhash Sharma, Kailash @ Deewana, Anandi Lal @ Nandi and Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar were arrested by the police. All the four accused got the spot identified from where the dead body was recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/31 to Exhibit-P/34. 29. Constable Dwarka Prasad (P.W./23) had taken sealed packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 30. Head Constable Babulal S/o Govardhan Lal (P.W.25) being incharge of Malkhana had proved deposit of sealed packets to him and handing over the same to Constable Dwarka Prasad (P.W.23) for deposit in the FSL. 31. 29. Constable Dwarka Prasad (P.W./23) had taken sealed packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 30. Head Constable Babulal S/o Govardhan Lal (P.W.25) being incharge of Malkhana had proved deposit of sealed packets to him and handing over the same to Constable Dwarka Prasad (P.W.23) for deposit in the FSL. 31. Tara Chand (P.W.24) Head Constable had carried the written report to police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. 32. Vijay Singh (P.W.27) who on 9.10.2006 was posted as SHO, Police Station Srimadhopur, and Yogendra Fauzdar (P.W.28) who was posted as Circle Officer of Ringas, have proved various facets of investigation. 33. Now, we shall deal with the acquittal of Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar recorded by the trial Judge. 34. We have already noted that the witnesses to the recovery memos Exhibit-P/16 and Exhibit-P/17 i.e. recovery of one belt and foot mat of Bolero vehicle from Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar, have turned hostile to the prosecution. We have also noted that after the deceased was murdered, the accused with Bolero vehicle of which robbery was committed had come to Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and through him met Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) and when both Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) in their vehicle were going to drop the accused at Thana Gaji, their vehicle was stopped by ASI Bhawani Singh (P.W.22). Both Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) have not identified Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar as one who had accompanied other three accused namely Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Kailash @ Deewana and Subhash Sharma. Thus, to us the trial court has rightly acquitted Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar, as the witnesses to the recovery at his instance have not supported the case of the prosecution and it has not been proved that after Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar was last seen with the deceased Birbal Meena by Lekhraj (P.W.3) and Bhagirath (P.W.18), he had further gone ahead with the deceased Birbal Meena or not. Therefore, the finding returned by the trial Judge regarding acquittal of Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar cannot be termed perverse. Therefore, the finding returned by the trial Judge regarding acquittal of Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar cannot be termed perverse. The view formulated by the trial Judge is one view which on the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible as the only evidence of last seen is not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the accused Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar had also participated in the occurrence. 35. Now we shall deal with the recoveries effected from the accused. 36. On 15.10.2006, Kailash @ Deewana suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/53) that the clothes worn by him at the time of occurrence and documents pertaining to Bolero vehicle No. RJ 14 UA 4770 i.e. Service Book, Insurance, Service Bills, Tax Receipts etc have been concealed by him in the house of his in-laws at Jagdamba Colony, Jhotwara. In pursuance of disclosure statement made by Kailash @ Deewana (Exhibit-P/53), Kailash @ Deewana vide recovery memo (Exhibit-P/40) got recovered documents and clothes. 37. Anandi Lal @ Nanda suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/55) and in pursuance thereof vide recovery memo Exhibit-P/38 got recovered Pass Book of account of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur belonging to the deceased Birbal Meena. 38. Accused, Subhash Sharma in pursuance of disclosure statement suffered by him vide recovery memo Exhibit-P/36 got recovered one tape cassette player and vide memo Exhibit-P/35 he also got recovered one Stepney tire of vehicle Bolero. Furthermore, accused Subhash Sharma vide recovery memo Exhibit-P/7 got recovered Bolero vehicle belonging to the deceased Birbal Meena. 39. The prosecution also proved on record the report submitted by SFSL as Exhibit-P/51 and Exhibit-P/52. We may notice here that on most of the clothes and parts of the vehicle human blood has been found. The origin of blood group has not been found by the SFSL and therefore, the report of SFSL in no way advance the case of the prosecution. 40. Be that as it may, Kajod (P.W.9) has deposed in the court that in his presence, accused Subhash Sharma got recovered Stepney tire of the vehicle and a tape recorder, whereas Anandi Lal @ Nanda got recovered Pass Book belonging to the accused. 41. 40. Be that as it may, Kajod (P.W.9) has deposed in the court that in his presence, accused Subhash Sharma got recovered Stepney tire of the vehicle and a tape recorder, whereas Anandi Lal @ Nanda got recovered Pass Book belonging to the accused. 41. Madan (P.W.19) has stated that on 16.10.2006, Kailash @ Deewana accused took police party to the house of his in-laws at Jagdamba Colony, Jhotwara, where he got recovered clothes and paper/documents belonging to the Bolero vehicle. 42. Kishan Lal (P.W.20) stated that on 7.10.2006, Subhash and Anandi Lal @ Nanda accused came to his house. They asked about Birbal Meena, as they wanted to hire the vehicle. This witness told them that Birbal Meena has taken the vehicle for repair to the workshop of company. 43. To similar effect is the statement of Rajendra Meena (P.W.21). This witness stated that he was present in his house. His uncle Kishan was sitting with him. On 7.10.2006, at 7:00 PM, Subhash Sharma and Anandi Lal @ Nanda came and stated that they wanted to hire a vehicle. They were informed that the vehicle of Birbal Meena has gone for repair at workshop. 44. We have noted the relevant evidence which has emerged in the deposition of the witnesses. After the witnesses were examined, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances. 45. We have heard Mr. Ashvin Garg, counsel for Kailash @ Deewana, Mr. S.K. Singodiya appearing for accused appellant Anandi Lal @ Nanda. 46. In the present case, nobody has caused appearance on behalf of the appellant Subhash Sharma. We have been informed by Mr. Rinesh Gupta, the learned counsel that he is no longer a counsel for the accused Subhash Sharma. 47. Since, Mr. Ashvin Garg has mastered the facts and was very well prepared, on our request, he had also addressed the arguments on behalf of the accused appellant Subhash Sharma. In the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka [ (2013) 3 SCC 721 ], it has been held that after the perusal of the record and evidence, the court can decide the appeal without the appearance of counsel on behalf of the accused appellant. In the present case, when we were in the midst of hearing arguments, we were informed that Mr. Rinesh Gupta no longer represent accused appellant Subhash Sharma. 48. In the present case, when we were in the midst of hearing arguments, we were informed that Mr. Rinesh Gupta no longer represent accused appellant Subhash Sharma. 48. The learned counsel for the appellants have assailed the recoveries by urging that the recovery of Bolero vehicle is from an open and accessible place, which was found parked in the street in front of the house of one Banwari, who is neighbour of Subhash Sharma. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of Lekhraj (P.W.3), as he is an interested witness. 49. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the cross-examination of Lekhraj (P.W.3), wherein he admitted that the fact that the Birbal Meena had accompanied the accused in the vehicle, and he had alighted at Kala Kua, Alwar, was not disclosed by him to Rajendra, brother of the deceased, Birbal Meena. The learned counsel further contended that Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) are made up witnesses. They have been introduced by the investigating agency. It is stated that it has come in evidence of Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) that he had spotted blood in the vehicle but immediately after the accused had left, he had not approached the police. It is stated that the story that the accused went and met Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) is a concocted version. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that we should not take into account the testimony of Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6). It is further contended that all the recoveries effected from the accused are padding and hence, are not admissible. 50. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has completed the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that accused alone had committed the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that court below was not justified to record the acquittal of Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar, as it has come in evidence that he was last seen with the deceased Birbal Meena and had travelled in the vehicle of which robbery was committed. 51. The prosecution has succeeded to prove that the deceased died due to violence. 51. The prosecution has succeeded to prove that the deceased died due to violence. There was injury on his head and ligature mark was present around the neck. Dr. D.P. Rawat (P.W.2) has proved on record that the cause of death was Coma due to head injury and asphyxia due to strangulation. It has also come in evidence that immediately after the murder was committed, the Bolero vehicle belonging to the deceased bearing Registration No. RJ 14 UA 4770 was found missing. It has also come in the evidence that the said vehicle has been recovered in front of the house of Banwari, opposite to the house of accused Subhash Sharma. Furthermore, on the disclosure made by the accused, vide recovery memo Exhibit- P/7, Bolero vehicle was recovered. Recovery of other articles belonging to the deceased Birbal Meena have also been effected from two accused, namely Kailash @ Deewana and Anandi Lal @ Nanda. Even though, witness to recovery from Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar have turned hostile to the prosecution. 52. To us, the evidence of Lekhraj (P.W.3) is important piece of evidence. Lekhraj (P.W.3) is not related to the deceased, Birbal Meena. He also knew the accused. He has stated that after the vehicle was taken from the workshop, the accused Kailash @ Deewana was driving the vehicle and Anandi Lal @ Nanda, acquitted accused Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar and Subhash Sharma were occupants of the vehicle. After Lekhraj (P.W.3) had alighted from the vehicle, the deceased Birbal Meena and all the four accused were together. Immediately, thereafter, all the four persons along with the vehicle reached at the house of Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5). Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) has not identified Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar but he is categoric that he Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Subhash Sharma and Kailash @ Deewana came with Bolero vehicle and he has also given the number of the said vehicle. The said vehicle belong to deceased Birbal Meena. It has further come in evidence that Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) took the accused to Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) and in the vehicle jointly owned by Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) on the request made by the accused, they (accused) had travelled together with Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) together. It has further come in evidence that Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) took the accused to Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) and in the vehicle jointly owned by Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) on the request made by the accused, they (accused) had travelled together with Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) together. On the way, the vehicle was stopped by ASI, Bhawani Singh (P.W.22) and there Kailash @ Deewana had introduced himself as one, who belonged to the village of police officer. Thus, the evidence of two witnesses Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) is clincher. The accused have reached them with the vehicle of the deceased Birbal Meena without the deceased. Thus, it proves the story propounded by the prosecution that after committing the murder and throwing the dead body of deceased Birbal Meena, accused with the vehicle had reached at the house of Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6). It has also come in evidence that though Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) had spotted the blood in the vehicle, but he was satisfied with the explanation given by the accused that it may be break-oil. Later on having doubt on the version given by the accused, he called the accused to take away the vehicle as they have to go to Vaishno Devi. It has come in the evidence that in the night Subhash Sharma and Anandi Lal @ Nanda came in Commander Jeep and took away the vehicle of which robbery was committed and said vehicle was parked by Subhash Sharma in front of his house. 53. Thus, last seen evidence of Lekhraj (P.W.3) prove that deceased and vehicle was with accused. Immediately thereafter, when they met Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) vehicle was with accused but Birbal Meena to whom vehicle belonged was missing. Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) are independent witnesses. Their testimony aspires confidence, thus, accused are bound to explain as to where Birbal Meena had gone, who was last seen with them. No explanation is forthcoming. 54. Criticism advanced against the testimony of Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) who are friends of the accused is not of such nature that we should discard their testimony. To us, Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) are truthful witnesses. Their testimony is further corroborated by ASI Bhawani Singh (P.W.22). No explanation is forthcoming. 54. Criticism advanced against the testimony of Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) who are friends of the accused is not of such nature that we should discard their testimony. To us, Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6) are truthful witnesses. Their testimony is further corroborated by ASI Bhawani Singh (P.W.22). Thus, the chain of circumstances is complete. The accused were last seen with the deceased Birbal Meena and his vehicle by Lekhraj (P.W.3). Further, after committing the murder of the deceased Birbal Meena, they had approached to Kishan Lal Sharma (P.W.5) and Dashrath Saini (P.W.6). Thereafter, the recoveries have been effected from them. 55. Thus, we find that the trial Judge had rightly convicted the accused appellants, namely Anandi Lal @ Nanda, Subhash Sharma and Kailash @ Deewana. We have already given our reasons in Para-34 to uphold the acquittal. Thus, we affirm acquittal of Vinod Kumar @ Dholya Gurjar. 56. Consequently, the appeals preferred by the accused appellants being devoid of any merit are dismissed by affirming their conviction and sentence. 57. The state appeal also being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. Appeals dismissed.