JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Tehseem, Arman, Azaaz Khan and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra, four accused were sent for trial in a case of circumstantial evidence for having committed murder of Bhom Singh between 7th and 8th of August, 2008. 2. The court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide impugned judgment dated 12.11.2009 held all the four accused guilty of offence under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 IPC. Having convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:- U/s 302/34 IPC- to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months R.I. U/s 392/34 IPC- to undergo seven years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months R.I. 3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, four separate appeals have been instituted by Tehseem, Arman, Azaaz Khan and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra, bearing No. D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 342/2010, 15/2010, 341/2010 and 262/2010, respectively. Since in all the appeals, common judgment has been assailed, we shall decide all the appeals together. 4. Sube Singh (P.W.1), at relevant time was posted as Sub-Inspector, Police Station Bagru. This witness on 7.8.2008, at 11:45 PM, had proceeded in a Government jeep from Bagru Police Station for patrolling along with Harvendra Singh (not examined) and Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2). At 3:15 AM, while he was passing through National Highway No.8, Mahapura, he received a wireless message that in a mini truck parked near Neta Ki Dhani, Ramchandrapura, a dead body is lying. This witness reached at the place disclosed and found that on the left side of the road, a truck bearing No. RJ 19 1G 3336 was parked and in the cabin of the same, a dead body of unidentified person was lying. Noticing above facts, Sube Singh (P.W.1) had drawn written report (Exhibit-P/1), which he had sent at Police Station Bagru, through Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2) for registration of case. The said written report (Exhibit-P/1) was presented before Ashok Chauhan (P.W.15), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Bagru. Noticing above facts, Sube Singh (P.W.1) had drawn written report (Exhibit-P/1), which he had sent at Police Station Bagru, through Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2) for registration of case. The said written report (Exhibit-P/1) was presented before Ashok Chauhan (P.W.15), who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Bagru. Ashok Chauhan (P.W.15) conducted investigation and having found that all the four accused-appellants have committed the offence, had sent them for trial by submitting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 5. The inquest proceedings of unidentified dead body which was found in a truck were carried. Moola Ram (P.W.8) and Gopal (P.W.10) both sons of the deceased Bhom Singh came forward and identified the dead body to be of their father. They had attested the inquest (Exhibit-P/27). 6. Autopsy on the dead body of Bhom Singh was conducted by Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma (P.W.13). In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/47) eleven injuries were found on the person of the deceased, Bhom Singh. Injuries were penetrating sharp or linear sharp injuries. Thus, they were caused by incised weapon. As per opinion of the Medical Board the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock. The injury No.1 on the right side of chest had proved fatal out of all the injuries. The duration between death and Post Mortem was 6-18 hours. 7. During investigation, no direct evidence was found and the investigating agency to secure the conviction of the appellants, relied upon following three circumstances:- (A) Evidence of last seen. The solitary witness of last seen, Ajit Singh Rathore (P.W.5) has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. (B) Evidence of finger prints. On 8.8.2008, at 6:40 AM, Ashok Chauhan (P.W.15), SHO, Police Station Bagru called Narendra Singh (P.W.4), who was then posted as Sub-Inspector in S.T. Section, Kotwali and he lifted two chance finger prints from the door of the driver side of the truck vide memo Exhibit-P/4, which was attested by Harvendra Singh, Head Constable (not examined) and Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2). As per the report (Exhibit-P/50) given by Director, Finger-prints Bureau, chance finger-prints lifted tallied with the specimen finger-prints of Azaaz Khan, Tehseem and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra. As per the report (Exhibit-P/50) given by Director, Finger-prints Bureau, chance finger-prints lifted tallied with the specimen finger-prints of Azaaz Khan, Tehseem and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra. (C) Recoveries effected from the accused, which include articles recovered from the cabin of the truck, blood stained clothes of the accused taken into possession by the police on the date of arrest i.e. 8.8.2008 and also recoveries effected at the behest of the accused in pursuance of disclosure made by them. 8. The prosecution to prove above circumstances in all had examined 16 witnesses and proved on record documents Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/78. Two of the accused, namely Tehseem and Arman raised a plea that on the date when occurrence took place, they were less than 18 years of age, hence, being delinquent juvenile in conflict with law, they are entitled to beneficial provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. To prove their claim of juvenity, they examined three witnesses and placed on record two documents Exhibit-D/1 and Exhibit-D/2. (A) We shall first deal with the evidence of last seen. 9. Sube Singh (P.W.1) in written report (Exhibit-P/1) and in the court stated that four or five boys aged 20-22 years, after committing murder had decamped from the spot. This witness further stated that after he reached at the spot, he met Ajit Singh Rathore (P.W.5), who disclosed that four boys aged 20-22 years were present near the truck. 10. Ajit Singh Rathore (P.W.5) only witness to the last seen stated that he was posted as Guard in Central Bank of India and was staying in a rented accommodation at village Ramchandrapura. In the night, at 2:00/2:30 AM, due to barking of the dog, he woke up and saw two boys around the truck and this witness questioned them as to where they are going. They informed that they are going to factory. This witness disbelieved their version. This witness called his neighbour Bhanwar, who searched in the light, but the accused ran away. This witness stated that however, clothes of the deceased were not smeared with blood. Since this witness had not identified the four persons to whom he had seen around the truck, this witness was declared hostile. 11. In the present case, since Ajit Singh Rathore (P.W.5) had not stood for the prosecution, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the evidence of last seen. Since this witness had not identified the four persons to whom he had seen around the truck, this witness was declared hostile. 11. In the present case, since Ajit Singh Rathore (P.W.5) had not stood for the prosecution, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the evidence of last seen. (B) Evidence of finger-prints: 12. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of written report (Exhibit-P/1) sent by Sube Singh (P.W.1), Sub- Inspector, through Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2), the investigating officer Ashok Chauhan (P.W.15) reached at the spot in the morning of 8.8.2008. The investigating officer called the team of Forensic Science Laboratory to examine the place of occurrence. He had also called Narendra Singh, Sub- Inspector, who was posted at S.T. Section, Kotwali. From the door of driver side of the truck, two chance finger-prints were lifted vide memo Exhibit-P/4. The said memo was prepared on 8.8.2008 at 6:45 AM. 13. All the four accused namely Azaaz Khan, Arman, Tehseem and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra were also arrested on 8.8.2008 vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/5, Exhibit-P/6, Exhibit- P/7 and Exhibit-P/8, respectively. 14. Ashok Chauhan (P.W.15) who was posted as SHO, Police Station Bagru, was Investigating Officer of the case. In the court, this witness deposed that finger-prints of all the four accused were taken. Specimen samples of the finger-prints of the accused were prepared vide memo Exhibit-P/57 to Exhibit- P/62. In cross-examination, this witness admitted to be correct that the finger-prints of the accused were not taken in the presence of the Magistrate. In the court, this witness further stated that Exhibit-P/58 and Exhibit-P/62 specimen fingerprints of accused Tehseem and Arman were attested by Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur. A perusal of the Exhibit- P/58 and Exhibit-P/62 reveals that the same bears the signatures of Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur and below his signatures, he had appended the date of taking specimen samples of finger-prints as 15.11.2008. This witness further stated that specimen finger-prints Exhibit-P/57 and Exhibit- P/59 to Exhibit-P/61 of Azaaz Khan, Tehseem and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra were also taken in the presence of Jail Doctor. However, on which date and what time these samples were taken, the Investigating Officer had feigned ignorance. This witness further stated that specimen finger-prints Exhibit-P/57 and Exhibit- P/59 to Exhibit-P/61 of Azaaz Khan, Tehseem and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra were also taken in the presence of Jail Doctor. However, on which date and what time these samples were taken, the Investigating Officer had feigned ignorance. We shall reproduce the exact words from the testimony of this witness as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih&50 ls ysdj izn'kZ ih&62 rd ds nLrkost esjh dyeh ugha gS] izn'kZ ih&57 ls ysdj izn'kZ ih&62 rd esjs funsZ'ku esa fy[kok;s x;s FksA izn'kZ ih0 57 fpfdRld ds lkeus fy;s mldks fQaxj fizaV C;wjks fHktok;kA izn'kZ ih&59 ls izn'kZ ih&61 Hkh MkWDVj ds lkeus fy;s x;sA fdl rkjh[k] eghuk] lky dks fy;s ns[kdj ugha crk ldrkA izn'kZ ih&58 tsyj ls izekf.kr djok;k FkkA** 15. The office of Director, Finger-Prints Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur in its report (Exhibit-P/50) has given his opinion that the specimen samples of finger-prints of the accused tallied with the chance finger-prints lifted qua accused Tehseem, Arman and Azaaz Khan. 16. The accused were arrested on 8.8.2008, on which date specimen samples of finger-prints were taken. Nothing has been proved on record. The prosecution case is totally silent on which date they reached Director, Finger-Prints Bureau. Nothing is on the record qua Exhibit-P/58 and Exhibit-P/62 pertaining to Tehseem and Arman except that they bear attestation of Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur. Below his attestation, Superintendent of Central Jail had given the date as 15.11.2008. Thus, on that day the accused were in judicial custody. There is nothing on the record that under whose orders the accused were called out of the jail to the office of Superintendent of Jail to give their specimen finger-prints. Remaining specimen of the finger-prints of the accused were taken before the Medical Officer of the Jail. Both Superintendent of Jail and Medical Officer of the Jail have not been examined. No opportunity has been given to counsel for the accused to cross-examine these two witnesses to find out whether the accused had voluntarily given specimen fingerprints or they were forcibly obtained. 17. The trial Judge, relying upon Section 4 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, has stated that there was no need to take finger-prints of the accused in the presence of the Magistrate as they have been obtained before the gazetted officer. 18. 17. The trial Judge, relying upon Section 4 of Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, has stated that there was no need to take finger-prints of the accused in the presence of the Magistrate as they have been obtained before the gazetted officer. 18. To assail the finding given by the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon Prakash v. State of Karnataka [(2014 Cri.L.J. 2503] wherein it was held that where there is no evidence that the finger prints were taken by the investigating officer under the orders of the Magistrate, manner of taking finger prints cannot be held credible and same cannot be construed against the accused. We will reproduce Paras-46 and 47 of the judgment in the case of Prakash (supra) as under:- "46. Assuming Prakashs fingerprint was in fact obtained by DSouza, it was clearly not given voluntarily, but perhaps unwittingly and in what seems to be a deceitful manner. To avoid any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the fingerprint so taken or resort to any subterfuge, the appropriate course of action for the Investigating Officer was to approach the Magistrate for necessary orders in accordance with section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. In Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10 SCC 44 this Court referred to the possibility of the police fabricating evidence and to avoid an allegation of such a nature, it would be eminently desirable that fingerprints were taken under the orders of a Magistrate. We may add that this would equally apply to the creating evidence against a suspect. This is what this Court had to say: "Even though the specimen fingerprints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bonafides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate." 47. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bonafides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate." 47. The Karnataka High Court has taken the view [State of Rural Police v. B.C. Manjunatha, ILR 2013 Karnataka 3156] that it is not incumbent upon a police officer to take the assistance of a Magistrate to obtain the fingerprints of an accused and that the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act are not mandatory in this regard. However, the issue is not one of the provisions being mandatory or not - the issue is whether the manner of taking fingerprints is suspicious or not. In this case, we do not know if Prakashs fingerprint was taken on 7th November, 1990 as alleged by him or later as contended by the Investigating Officer, or the circumstances in which it was taken or even the manner in which it was taken. It is to obviate any such suspicion that this Court has held it to be eminently desirable that fingerprints are taken before or under the order of a Magistrate. As far as this case is concerned, the entire exercise of Prakashs fingerprint identification is shrouded in mystery and we cannot give any credence to it." 19. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in Paramasivam @ Paraman @ Kottiyan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [J.T. 2002 (8) SC 214] it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:- "4. Before proceeding further, however, the learned advocate placed a strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Mahmeed v. State of U.P., 1976 CRI.L.J. 10 as regards the finger prints and its admissibility wherein this Court in paragraph 16 of the report was pleased to observe as below : "16. Furthermore, the specimen fingerprints of the appellant were not taken before or under the order of a magistrate in accordance with section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. This is another suspicious feature of the conduct of investigation. It has not been explained why this magistrate was kept out of the picture." 5. Furthermore, the specimen fingerprints of the appellant were not taken before or under the order of a magistrate in accordance with section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. This is another suspicious feature of the conduct of investigation. It has not been explained why this magistrate was kept out of the picture." 5. Admittedly there has been no magistrate's presence or order in that regard and in that view this Court has expressed that in terms of the statutory provisions, the question of relying thereon would not arise. Reliance on PW 16 by the High Court thus possibly cannot be had by reason of the non-admissibility as noticed by this Court in Mahmood (supra)." 20. A similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1997 SC 2960 ]. 21. Having perused the judgments cited, we are of the view that it was necessary for the Investigating Officer to obtain signatures of the accused before the Magistrate, or after obtaining orders from him especially when the accused were to be taken out of the judicial custody. Accused being under trial for all deemed purposes were in the custody of the court. It is also incumbent for the prosecution to ensure that the accused had voluntarily given their specimen finger-prints and they were not under duress or the coercion. It was equally important for the prosecution to dispel that the accused were not compelled to self-incriminate themselves and there has been no breach of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 22. Except the Investigating Officer, that the specimen finger-prints of the accused were taken, no other witness of the prosecution has said a word about the taking of the specimen finger-prints of the accused. 23. The Investigation Officer himself in cross-examination had stated that he cannot tell the date and time when the specimen finger-prints of the accused were taken into possession. Thus, on facts also, taking of specimen finger-prints of the accused caste doubt. Thus, we will not rely on this piece of evidence. 24. 23. The Investigation Officer himself in cross-examination had stated that he cannot tell the date and time when the specimen finger-prints of the accused were taken into possession. Thus, on facts also, taking of specimen finger-prints of the accused caste doubt. Thus, we will not rely on this piece of evidence. 24. Having held that there is no evidence of last seen of with the prosecution, and it is not safe to rely upon the report given by Director, Finger-Prints Bureau that the two chance finger-prints lifted from the door of the truck tallied with the specimen finger-prints given by the accused, we shall consider the recovery effected from the accused. (C) Recoveries effected from the accused:- 25. All the four accused namely, Azaaz Khan, Arman, Tehseem and Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra were arrested on 8.8.2008 vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/5 to Exhibit-P/8, respectively. From inside the cabin of the truck vide memo Exhibit-P/9, one purse and driving license of the deceased were found. At the time of arrest, Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra was wearing T-shirt full sleeves and the same was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/10. 26. The appellant Arman at the time of arrest was wearing one pink colour half sleeves shirt and one old brown colour torn jeans, which were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/11. 27. The appellant Azaaz Khan at the time of arrest was wearing one full sleeves shirt having blood stains. The said shirt was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/12. 28. From the appellant Tehseem, at the time of arrest red colour full sleeves shirt and one grey (slety) trouser like pant were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/13. 29. The clothes worn by the accused which were taken into possession at the time of arrest were having blood stains. From the cabin of the truck, one blood smeared carpet was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/14. Furthermore, from inside the cabin of the truck, a blood smeared cover of knife was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/15. From the search of the truck, one mobile sim of Vodafone company and driving license of Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra were also recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/16. 30. The Investigating Officer had also taken into possession the blood smeared soil and concrete from the place of incident and controlled and simple soil vide two separate memos Exhibit-P/17 and Exhibit-P/18, respectively. 31. From the search of the truck, one mobile sim of Vodafone company and driving license of Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra were also recovered vide memo Exhibit-P/16. 30. The Investigating Officer had also taken into possession the blood smeared soil and concrete from the place of incident and controlled and simple soil vide two separate memos Exhibit-P/17 and Exhibit-P/18, respectively. 31. In pursuance of the disclosure statement made, Tehseem accused got recovered blood smeared knife. The accused Azaaz Khan got recovered Nokia handset 2300 and file of original papers of truck was also recovered at the instance of accused Kamlesh @ Sudhanshu Mishra. It may be pertinent to mention that all the recoveries were made in pursuance of disclosure made by the accused and they also got identified the place from where the dead body was recovered. 32. The prosecution relied upon the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit-P/49), which opined that the blood stained carpet, pant, vest of the deceased and the clothes of the accused, all have been found to have stains of human blood pertaining to Group-B. The trial Judge has heavily relied upon the fact that the clothes recovered from the accused and clothes of the deceased are having human blood of same Group-B. 33. The prosecution in the present case has relied upon 16 witnesses. Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma (P.W.13) had conducted post mortem. Dr. N.L. Disania (P.W.16) has determined the age of two accused namely Tehseem and Arman. Lallu Ram Yadav (P.W.3) who had witnessed various recoveries from the truck and recovery of blood stained soil, in the court has not supported the prosecution case and stated that in his presence, only blood stained earth was taken into possession. Ajit Singh Rathore (P.W.5) witness to the last seen has also turned hostile to the prosecution. Moola Ram (P.W.8) and Gopal (P.W.10) are sons of the deceased Bhom Singh. They have attested the inquest. Remaining all witnesses are police officials. What we want to emphasise here is that the recoveries are witnessed by police officials. One set of recoveries are attested by Head Constable Harvendra Singh and Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2). Head Constable Harvendra Singh has not been examined and Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2) has proved various recoveries effected at the spot from the accused. Another set of recoveries were attested by Ramji Lal and Constable Vijay Kumar (P.W.7). Ramji Lal has not been examined. One set of recoveries are attested by Head Constable Harvendra Singh and Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2). Head Constable Harvendra Singh has not been examined and Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2) has proved various recoveries effected at the spot from the accused. Another set of recoveries were attested by Ramji Lal and Constable Vijay Kumar (P.W.7). Ramji Lal has not been examined. Thus, the recoveries have not been supported by any independents witness. For proving the recoveries, the case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of Constable Arjun Singh (P.W.2) and Constable Vijay Kumar (P.W.7). No disclosure statement has been attested by any witness. 34. In the case of Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 3040, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) was a Member relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar and Dinesh @ Pillu v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.158/2010, decided on 10.11.2014, has observed as under :- "Having appreciated the evidence of the witness, it is to be noted that disclosure statement Ex-P/22 as made by Munesh is not attested by any witness what to say of any independent witness. Ex.P/22 is recorded on 31st July, 2006 at 11 P.M. It is only signed by SHO Police Station, Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur. It was held in Harjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3040 that disclosure statement should be signed by independent person and Investigating officer should not associate any eye witness with the recovery memos. In the present case, no witness was associated at the time when disclosure statement was made. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the disclosure statement was made voluntary without any duress or coercion. To justify voluntary character of disclosure statement, it ought to be recorded in the presence of witnesses, it is to be noted that Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that nothing stated to police is admissible in evidence. Since Section 27 carve out an exception, it is necessary that prosecution must show some material to the Court to be satisfied that same was not fabricated, therefore, it is necessary that it should have been made in presence of some witnesses." 35. Since Section 27 carve out an exception, it is necessary that prosecution must show some material to the Court to be satisfied that same was not fabricated, therefore, it is necessary that it should have been made in presence of some witnesses." 35. We may notice here that truck from which the dead body was recovered was fully loaded with articles. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused in order to commit theft or out of greed had caused murder. They have not committed theft of truck or the articles with which it was loaded. The prosecution has failed to prove on record any motive, as to why accused had committed the offence. Even though, we give necessary leeway to the prosecution and say that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove motive, yet we are on our wits to understand as to how four accused belonging to different places had joined hands together. 36. Ashok Chauhan (P.W.15) who was posted as SHO and is investigating officer, in the court stated that it is correct that all the four accused belong to different places and different colony and earlier thereto all the accused were never seen together, eating or drinking together. He has further stated that he has not taken into possession the blood of the accused to determine their blood group. It will be apposite here to reproduce following portion :- ^^;g lgh gS fd eqyftekuksa dks CyM xzqi pSd ugha djok;kA ;g lgh gS fd pkjksa eqyfteku vyx&vyx txg ekSgYyksa ds jgus okys gSaA ;g lgh gS fd ?kVuk ls igys bu pkjksa eqyftekuksa dks lkFk jgrs [kkrs&ihrs fdlh xokg us ugha ns[kkA** 37. Considering that in the heart of city Jaipur, the dead body was recovered on the intervening night of 7th and 8th August, 2008, and accused were arrested on the same day at Police Station Vaishali Nagar before 12:00 or 12:30 PM, we can only say that it cannot be ruled out that the police in over zeal to solve the case may have involved the accused. 38. The Investigating Officer in the court has admitted it to be correct that all the witnesses to the recovery memos were police officials and before the recoveries were effected, the accused were already in the custody of the polcie at Police Station Vaishali Nagar. 38. The Investigating Officer in the court has admitted it to be correct that all the witnesses to the recovery memos were police officials and before the recoveries were effected, the accused were already in the custody of the polcie at Police Station Vaishali Nagar. We shall reproduce the exact words of Investigating Officer as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd bu QnksZ esa lHkh eksrohj iqfyldehZ FksA ;g lgh gS fd esjh QnZ fxjrkjh ls igys lHkh eqyfteku Fkkuk oS'kkyhuxj dh fxjr esa FksA** 39. Considering that the disclosure statement are not attested by any witness and the recoveries have not been proved by any independent person, we have our doubts regarding recoveries effected from the accused. We cannot rule out the recoveries to be padding and even otherwise, recovery alone are not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the offence has been only committed by the accused and nobody else. 40. Having held that the prosecution case regarding last seen is insufficient and the report of the Director of Finger Prints Bureau, State of Rajasthan, that the chance finger prints taken from the door of the cabin of the truck and the specimen finger-prints tally being not admissible for the reasons stated by us, we also conclude that the recoveries sought to be proved by the prosecution are doubtful. 41. As a result of above discussion, all the four appeals are accepted. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside. 42. In view of the acceptance of the appeal, in above terms, we order that the appellants be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. 43. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Appeal allowed.