JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. Appeals at S.No.1 to 5 above are directed against the common judgement dated 2.2.2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.17/2006 has convicted the accused-appellants in the following manner: “(i) Accused-appellant Suresh Kumar S/o Ganga Ram has been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act he has been awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment; (ii) Accused-appellant Ashwani Kumar has been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year; (iii) Accused-appellant Aman has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 120-B and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year; (iv) Accused-appellants Anil Kumar @ Kaley and Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Prem Kumar have been convicted for offence u/s.147 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months each, for offence u/s.148 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.364 IPC to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with Section 149, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000 each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 120B IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each. (v) Accused-appellants Rajveer Singh and Vipin @ Vikki have been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 149 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000 each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.147 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and for offence u/s. 148 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment, for offence u/s.341 IPC sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for offence u/s.364 IPC sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each. Accused-appellant Vipin @ Vikki was also convicted for offence u/s.3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months' with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal at S.No.6 above, bearing no.35/2008 is directed against the judgement dated 30.7.2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.5/2007 has convicted the accused-appellant-Mannu @ Manoj for offence u/s.147 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment; for offence u/s.148 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, for offence u/s.341 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for offence u/s.364 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 149 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 120-B IPC, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and accused-appellant was held entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Facts essential for deciding the appeals are that one Govind Khinchi gave a telephonic information to the Police Station Chandwaji at about 6.20 pm on 22.11.2005 that 5-6 persons in a mahroon colour Maruti Car bearing No.DL-6CE-0434 intercepted the Safari Car, driven by him, bearing no.RJ-14 UA-2502 at Rajpurwas Near Tala River and abducted his master (Sethji) Shankar Lal Agarwal who was travelling therein. On that information, Ashok Kumar, SHO, Police Station Chandwaji reached the place of occurrence and gave information to the Police Headquarters and higher officials. Govind Khinchi came to the Police Station at 8.00 PM on that very day along with one Shri Ram Agarwal and submitted written report stating that he was employed as driver with Shankar Lal Agarwal. On that day, around 5.10 PM, he was driving the Safari Car and Shankar Lal was with him. They started from his farm house. When they reached at Rajpurwas near Tala River around 6.00 PM, one Maruti Car of mahroon colour bearing no.DL-6CE-0434 overtook them and stopped in front of their car. Two persons came out of the car and rushed towards their vehicle. They were using abusive language. Their accent was Haryanvi. One of them abused Shankar Lal and stated that he had embezzled the money of his brother in law (sala). Soon two persons came out from behind nearby bushes and opened fire at him (Shankar Lal). The informant Govind Khinchi came out of the Car and ran for his life. At that time, Shankar Lal raised hue and cry, but the informant rushed towards the river. If these persons are produced before him (informant), he could identify them and also identify the vehicle, which they were using. These persons abducted Shankar Lal Agarwal with the intention of killing him. On the basis of aforesaid report, a regular First Information Report for offence u/s.364 IPC was chalked out. During investigation, the Maruti Car, which was found lying at the place of incidence, was seized. Safari Car was also found parked near Lakher. Dead body of Shankar Lal, which was soaked in blood, was found lying therein. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the same was handed over to the relatives. During investigation, the Maruti Car, which was found lying at the place of incidence, was seized. Safari Car was also found parked near Lakher. Dead body of Shankar Lal, which was soaked in blood, was found lying therein. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the same was handed over to the relatives. During nakabandi, SHO Kotputli stopped one Tata Indica Car No.RJ-14-9C-1335 and arrested accused Suresh Saini and Ashwani, who were found travelling therein. The vehicle was also seized. One pistol and blood stained shirt was recovered from Suresh Saini, whereas mobile phone with nos.9351451655 and 9829625139 were recovered from Ashwani Kumar. One live and two used cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence, which were seized. On the basis of call details, accused Aman, Vikas, Surendra Singh, Anil @ Kaley, Vipin @ Vikky and Suresh Kumar Dhanka were arrested. Thereafter, accused Rajveer Singh was arrested and on the basis of his information, torn photo of deceased Shankar Lal and keys of Sarafi Car were recovered. The police after thorough investigation filed challan against eight accused, whereafter supplementary challan was filed against Aman Jat. Accused Surendra Singh and Vikas being juveniles, their case was separately sent to Juvenile Justice Board. Charges for offence u/s.302, 364, 147, 148, 149, 341, 382, 120B IPC were framed against accused-appellant Ashwani Kumar, Anil Kumar, Suresh S/o Prem Kumar, Surendra Singh, Vikas Kumar, Rajveer Singh and for offence u/s.302, 364, 147, 148, 149, 341, 382, 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act against accused-appellant Suresh S/o Gangaram and Shri Vipin. However, in addition thereto, substantive charge for offence u/s.302 IPC was also framed against accused Rajveer Singh. While the prosecution produced 36 witnesses and exhibited 138 documents, the defence did not produce any witness, however, exhibited 21 documents. Trial of the accused ended in their conviction as referred to above. We have heard learned counsels Shri Suresh Sahni for accused-appellants Suresh Kumar S/o Ganga Ram and Ashwani Kumar, Smt. Naina Saraf for accused-appellant Aman, Shri B.R. Choudhary for accused-appellant Mannu @ Manoj, Shri Vishwajeet Mantri for Anil Kumar @ Kalely and Suresh Kumar S/o Prem Kumar, Shri Devendra Bhardwaj and Shri Govind Prasad Rawat for accused appellant Rajveer Singh and Vipin as well as Shri Upendra Nath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Harendra Singh with Shri Rajesh Choudhary for the complainant. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the accused appellants Suresh Saini and Ashwani argued that there is no evidence to infer that the accused-appellants entered into a conspiracy to liquidate Shankar Lal and for that purpose, contacted Aman. Seizure of the articles vide Ex.P11, 12 and 13 is doubtful and is outcome of police padding. There is no evidence that pistol alleged to be recovered at the instance of Suresh S/o Ganga Ram vide Ex.P12 was given by him to the accused appellants for liquidating the deceased Shankar Lal and was thereafter received back by him. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel argued that it is settled proposition of law in relation to circumstantial evidence by a long line of judicial pronouncements having the force of Article 141 of the Constitution of India that it is incumbent upon the Courts to find whether the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are established by satisfactory evidence and whether the circumstances are of such a nature as to exclude every other hypothesis save the one that the appellant is guilty of the offence of which he is charged. The circumstances have to be of such a nature as to be consistent with the sole hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime imputed to him. It is argued that no test identification parade was conducted in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence Act and moreover, no veil was put around the face of Suresh Saini and this fact stands corroborated from the admission of Govind Khinchi (PW1) that he has already seen the accused Suresh Saini S/o Ganga Ram at Police Station Chandwaji. Therefore, the intrinsic value of test identification parade by flint, stock and barrel, is without any legal merit. The learned trial court erroneously and against the criminal jurisprudence, cast the burden upon the accused persons in relation to the circumstantial evidence, which is evident from the impugned judgement. It is contended that though the prosecution came with the motive of business differences between Ashwani and deceased relating to the period 1991, which is evident from the testimony of Madhu Agarwal (PW27) but failed to prove the same in accordance with law. There is great amount of inconsistency between the statement of Govind Khinchi (PW1) recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. and his Court statement. There is great amount of inconsistency between the statement of Govind Khinchi (PW1) recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. and his Court statement. It is contended that the most glaring admission of Ashok Kumar, SHO (PW34) is courtesy interrogation of accused Suresh Saini. He found him involved in the crime, which speaks in volume about the perfunctory investigation carried out by the prosecution, which merits to be visited with scathing remarks as the prosecution cannot be permitted to toy and tinker with the liberty of the citizens. The disclosure statements recorded by the prosecution were not obtained before any independent persons, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon, the same being in contravention of the ratio laid down in Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab- (2002) 6 SCC 739 . It is contended that the informant Govind Khinchi (PW1) has inflated the number of accused persons as in written information he stated about only four persons, however, in court statement, he named about seven persons. The incident occurred in the month of November at 6.20 pm and at that time in that season, the dusk already gathered and there was no light to retain the physiognomy of so many persons in mind and memory. The prosecution has relied upon the place of identification pursuant to so-called disclosure statements, which in sum and reality, are of no legal value; for those places were already in the knowledge of the prosecution. It is contended that prosecution has not produced any call details of the deceased. The site plan Ex.P3 prepared at the instance of Govind Khinchi (PW1) is not admissible in evidence, which can at most fall within the arena of 'previous statement' and is also hit by the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement in Tori Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-AIR 1962 SC page 399. Shri Suresh Sahni, learned counsel further submits that the trial court has erroneously disbelieved various documents relied by the defence and most of these documents, namely; Ex.D11 to Ex.D19, are of the unimpeachable character, as these documents pertain to various judicial pronouncements. It is contended that the call details in relation to accused-appellant Ashwani, relied by the trial court, is per se wrong as the person who culled out the details, was not produced by the prosecution. It is contended that the call details in relation to accused-appellant Ashwani, relied by the trial court, is per se wrong as the person who culled out the details, was not produced by the prosecution. Relying on judgement of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors.- (2014) 10 SCC 473 , learned counsel argued that unless certificate on prescribed proforma in terms of Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act is produced, the call details of the accused could not be relied in evidence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has also relied on the judgements of Supreme Court in Nagaraj vs. State represented by Inspector of Police- (2015) 4 SCC 739 , Dharam Deo Yadav vs. State of U.P.- (2014) 5 SCC 509 , G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka- (2010) 8 SCC 593 , Wakil Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar-1981 (Supp) SCC 28, Manzoor vs. State of U.P.- (1982) 2 SCC 72 , Balkar Singh vs. State of Haryana- (2015) 2 SCC. Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Aman submitted that the case of the prosecution is full of discrepancies and that the version of prosecution witnesses is contradictory not only qua themselves, but also with that of other witnesses. The appellant Aman was arrested on 15.2.2006 at 9.35 PM vide Ex.P51. Conviction of the appellant is not based on critical examination of statement of witnesses and that his conviction was recorded merely on the basis of surmises, conjecture and doubt. Learned trial court while acquitting the accused-appellant of charges for offences u/s.147, 148, 341, 364, 302/149 IPC accepted the innocence of accused and dismissed the prosecution case regarding any type of participation with the other alleged accused persons. However, while convicting the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302/120-B, the learned trial court only based its finding on weak and unreliable circumstantial evidence, which has no link with other evidences available on record. In case of circumstantial evidence, the conviction can only be based on strong chain of evidence, which is lacking in the present case. It is argued that the learned trial court has given undue and illegal weight age to the statements of alleged co accused persons in relation to the unproved acquaintance of house of alleged accused Ashwani in Udai Nagar-B Colony, Jaipur and also about the alleged farm house of the deceased Shankar Lal. It is argued that the learned trial court has given undue and illegal weight age to the statements of alleged co accused persons in relation to the unproved acquaintance of house of alleged accused Ashwani in Udai Nagar-B Colony, Jaipur and also about the alleged farm house of the deceased Shankar Lal. In fact, the accused-appellant never had any relation with any accused person in connection with the offence. Accused-appellant Aman has wrongly been arrested from his house and nothing was recovered from him. False recoveries were shown just to implicate him in the murder case. Police prepared a false and bogus recovery memo Ex.P52. The accused-appellant never took any possession of gold and silver rings, nor he had these articles at any time with him. Since he had been arrested by police, his signature on the recovery memo Ex.P52 was obtained under undue pressure of police. It is argued that the learned trial court committed a serious illegality in accepting the hearsay evidence of witness Mool Chand (PW14). Information Memos (Ex.P62 and P63) are false and the accused-appellant never told the police about the house of alleged accused Ashwani, nor he told anything about the farm house of deceased Shankar Lal. Signatures of the accused-appellant on these papers were procured under pressure by the police. The learned trial court committed a serious illegality in accepting alleged disclosure statement of accused Suresh S/o Gangaram (Ex.P119) regarding the farm house of deceased Shankar Lal, showing accused-appellant Aman with him. The accused-appellant Aman never went to the farm house with Suresh S/o Gangaram or Ashwani. It is argued that such disclosure by one accused cannot be read against another accused. The trial court illegally relied on statement of Ram Kumar (PW35) who tried to prove a disclosure memo Ex.P126 and prepared a site plan Ex.P62 & P63. The accused-appellant never gave any such information to this witness, nor he disclosed any site. A fake memo was prepared to show recovery at the instance of Aman vide Ex.P52 of two rings and one mobile phone from the house no.1899 of one Rajendra Dhobi at Gurgaon. However, there is no mention of missing of rings or mobile phone in the inquest report of the dead body Ex.P9. A fake memo was prepared to show recovery at the instance of Aman vide Ex.P52 of two rings and one mobile phone from the house no.1899 of one Rajendra Dhobi at Gurgaon. However, there is no mention of missing of rings or mobile phone in the inquest report of the dead body Ex.P9. Madhu Agarwal (PW27), wife of the deceased neither in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nor in the Court statement stated anything about allegedly missing rings and mobile phone. Madhu Agarwal (PW27) was made to submit an application (Ex.P102) to the Superintendent of Police on 15.2.2006 itself regarding two missing rings of her husband, but nothing was said therein about the mobile. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was purposely recorded on 17.2.2006. This was done because when the accused appellant-Aman was arrested on 15.2.2006. The application/letter Ex.P102 neither has any inward number, nor any receipt has been given in that application. How and in what manner, it was submitted is not clear. Learned counsel submits that according to prosecution a sum of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the Safari Car in which the dead body of Shankar Lal Agarwal was found. If accused did not carry money, why would they take his two rings, is difficult to understand. Smt. Naina Saraf further argued that the alleged call details of the accused Aman with other accused were neither verified, nor certified. It is only given on a computer generated sheet. No certificate as required under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act has been produced. Learned counsel submitted that the information memo (Ex.P127) alleged to have been given by the appellant Aman under Section 27 was also a bogus document. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Krishna Gopal Soni (PW11), witness of recovery, who has submitted that he accompanied the police to Gurgaon on 18.2.2006. Aman was taken by the police to the house in Gurgaon. One woman had brought the keys of the Aman's room wherefrom the recovery was made. The lock of his room was allegedly opened from that key. The key of the lock was not seized by the police. It is not known as to who was that woman, who brought the key. Neither her statement was recorded, nor that woman has been produced as witness. The lock of his room was allegedly opened from that key. The key of the lock was not seized by the police. It is not known as to who was that woman, who brought the key. Neither her statement was recorded, nor that woman has been produced as witness. While at page 51 of the impugned judgement, name of the said woman has been stated to be Meena, but Krishna Gopal (PW11) has not given her name. No independent witness was associated with the process of recovery. No evidence has been produced to prove that Aman was in fact tenant in that room. Krishna Gopal (PW11) has stated that Aman in his presence called his friend, who came on a motorcycle and brought the key of Alto Car. Neither the statement of this friend was recorded, nor has he been produced as a witness and not even named. The police did not make entry of the Alto car no. HR-26N-5677 in the rojnamcha by which they went to Gurgaon. Mukut Bihari Agarwal (PW4), another attesting witness of various exhibits was also called from outside only because police did not want to associate the independent witness. Krishna Gopal Soni (PW11) is also an interested witness and not independent witness because he admitted that he happens to be cousin of deceased. Mukut Bihari Agarwal (PW4) happens to be the real brother of the deceased and therefore interested witness. No motive of the accused Aman has been proved. It is argued that Mool Chand (PW14) was taken as witness by the police for Ex.P62, the memo prepared at the instance of accused Aman of the House no.49, Udai Nagar-B Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur where the conspiracy was allegedly hatched by him along with Ashwani and Suresh Saini, which is highly unbelievable. The meeting of the accused Aman with other accused persons has also not been proved. Learned counsel referred to the finding recorded by the learned trial court at page 67 to 70 of the judgement and submitted that all the findings are based on the guess work, surmises and conjectures and there is no real foundation to sustain such finding. The meeting of the accused Aman with other accused persons has also not been proved. Learned counsel referred to the finding recorded by the learned trial court at page 67 to 70 of the judgement and submitted that all the findings are based on the guess work, surmises and conjectures and there is no real foundation to sustain such finding. Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for accused appellant Aman further referred to the statement of Vikram Singh (PW23) and submitted that in his cross examination he has admitted that the articles seized vide Ex.P52 i.e. two rings and one mobile, were not produced before him by the SHO in the sealed envelope. Perusal of his statement also shows that similar items were not mixed up therewith. She has in support of her arguments relied on judgment of Supreme Court in John Pandian vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.452/2007 and other connected appeals decided vide judgment dated 3.12.2010. Shri Vishwajeet Mantri, learned counsel for accused-appellant Anil Kumar @ Kaley and Suresh Kumar S/o Prem Kumar, in addition to adopting the arguments made by learned counsels Shri Suresh Sahni and Smt. Naina Saraf, submitted that the trial court has committed a serious illegality in convicting the accused-appellants by relying on testimony of the witnesses, whose statements are full of contradictions and who are highly interested witnesses. They, being relatives and employees of the deceased, are all planted witnesses . The offence of the accused-appellants is not proved beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch chain of circumstances against the accused-appellants is not so complete as to exclude every other hypothesis consistent with his innocence. There is no allegation against the accused-appellant Anil Kumar @ Kaley in the written report by Govind Khinchi (PW1). Govind Khinchi (PW1) himself deposed that he has seen the accused-Suresh Saini at the Police Station prior to the identification parade. There is no evidence on record regarding subsequent identification held before the Magistrate. Govind Khinchi (PW1) has not narrated the description of the accused persons, their heights and complexion and whatever clothes they were wearing at the time of incident. In such circumstances, therefore, the identification parade conducted is wholly illegal. Conviction of the present accused-appellants cannot be sustained merely on their identification as there is no iota of any other evidence against them. In such circumstances, therefore, the identification parade conducted is wholly illegal. Conviction of the present accused-appellants cannot be sustained merely on their identification as there is no iota of any other evidence against them. It is argued that the only evidence against the accused-appellants Anil Kumar @ Kaley and Suresh Kumar S/o Prem Kumar is identification parade vide Ex.P6 and P7 respectively alleged to have been proved by Rahul Bhargava (PW8) and Gopiram Yadav (PW10), but their statements do not inspire any confidence. The accused had informed the Magistrate conducting the post identification parade that they were shown to the witnesses in the police station. Therefore, such a test identification parade cannot be relied upon. Shri Devendra Bhardwaj and Shri Govind Prasad Rawat, learned counsel for accused-appellants Rajveer Singh and Vipin, apart from adopting the arguments made by the learned counsel for the co-accused, argued that the witnesses have disclosed some important facts to the police with inordinate delay, which cast a serious doubt on the evidence of such witnesses and their evidence cannot be said to be trustworthy, but the learned trial court did not give weight age to this important aspect. It is argued that no explanation was sought from the accused-appellants while examining them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is no evidence of appellants indulging in a conspiracy to murder the deceased. As regards the recovery of country made pistol at the instance of Vikky @ Vipin vide Ex.P45 by Ram Pratap Singh (PW25) and regarding the letter from the Amour Workshop (Ex.P97), it is argued that though the said country made pistol was found capable to fire, but at the same time, it was stated therein that trigger action was hard and it is not known whether it has fired or not. In the test identification of accused-appellants, they raised the objection that they were shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, which was proved by Rahul Bhargava (PW8) and Gopiram Yadav. It is argued that while incident took place on 22.11.2005, Vipin was arrested on 19.1.2006 vide Ex.P67 on production warrant while he was in custody of police at Gurgaon. Chandan Dan (PW36) has also admitted that in test identification parade, the witness said that he was shown. It is argued that while incident took place on 22.11.2005, Vipin was arrested on 19.1.2006 vide Ex.P67 on production warrant while he was in custody of police at Gurgaon. Chandan Dan (PW36) has also admitted that in test identification parade, the witness said that he was shown. As far as accused-appellant Rajveer Singh is concerned, the only evidence against him was that torn photograph of the deceased and key of Safari Car, were recovered from him vide Ex.P60. Another evidence against him was of test identification parade (Ex.P47) proved by Dr. Chetna (PW22) and the site plan of the place, wherefrom deceased Shankar Lal Agarwal was allegedly abducted (Ex.P48) and the site plan of the farm house of deceased (Ex.P49) and site plan of the place where the deceased Shankar Lal was left in Safari (Ex.P59). All these places were fully known to the police from before and that they could hardly afford any basis for conviction of the accused-appellant for serious offence like under Section 302 IPC. Shri B.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-Mannu @ Manoj has argued that this accused has been falsely implicated inasmuch as for incident of 22.11.2005, he was arrested on 20.9.2006, which is highly belated. The only evidence against him is Ex.P139 (Sessions Case No.5/07). The test identification parade was conducted by Vikram Singh (PW8). Accused raised the objection before him that he was shown to the witnesses Gopiram, Dhara Singh, Govind, Rahul Bhargava in the Police Station. Although it was alleged by Govind Khinchi that accused-appellant Mannu @ Manoj twice opened fire at deceased Shankar Lal Agarwal, but no firearm/pistol has been recovered at his instance. In fact, no recovery whatsoever has been made from him. It is argued that even Madhu Agarwal (PW10) has also not named accused-appellant in her statement. The trial court has mechanically convicted the accused-appellant only on the ground of identification parade, which was highly unbelievable. Shri Upendra Nath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that guilt of the accused-appellants for the alleged offences has been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The judgment of the learned trial court is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference. Shri Upendra Nath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that guilt of the accused-appellants for the alleged offences has been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The judgment of the learned trial court is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference. As regards accused-appellant Ashwani, learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that Smt. Madhu Agarwal (PW27) and Alok Agarwal (PW6) proved that relationship between the deceased Shankar Lal Agarwal and accused Ashwani was strained and the same is also proved by defence document (Ex.D9). Alok Agarwal (PW6) at the initial stage at 8.00 PM on 22.11.2005, on being asked by the police, expressed his doubt at the earliest point of time that deceased could be murdered by accused Ashwani. Thereupon, he was searched at his home lying within the area of Police Station, Mansarovar and on the basis of information received from Police Station Mansarovar, Sub Inspector of Chandwaji Police Station was sent for road barricading. Information was received from SHO, PS Mansarovar that Ashwani has left Jaipur alone to arrive at Rewari (Ex.D5A) by Indica Car No.RJ14 9C 1335 (memo of recovery of Car Ex.P12). He was intercepted in that very vehicle at Kotputli. Two mobile Nos.9351451655 and 9829625139 were recovered from accused-appellant Ashwani vide Ex.P12. Call details reveal that accused-Ashwani had been in continuous contact with other accused Suresh Saini and Aman Jat. One blood stained shirt was recovered from the aforesaid Car of Ashwani and the blood group of deceased matched with the blood found over the shirt (Ex.P96). It is argued that Suresh Saini and Aman Jat were close acquaintances. Aman showed deceased Shankar Lal to other accused as their target. He was identified by Dara Singh (PW17). Torn photo of deceased was recovered from Rajveer along with keys of Safari Car (Ex.P60). One desi katta (firearm) was recovered from accused Vipin vide Ex.P45. The ring and mobile of deceased Shankar Lal were recovered at the instance of accused-Aman from his house at Gurgaon (Ex.P52). Smt. Madhu Agarwal (PW27) has identified the said ring and mobile of deceased (Ex.P94). All the aforesaid evidence prove connection and involvement of accused in the crime in question. It is argued that accused-appellant Suresh Saini was tenant of accused Ashwani at Rewari and such relationship was established through the defence documents. Smt. Madhu Agarwal (PW27) has identified the said ring and mobile of deceased (Ex.P94). All the aforesaid evidence prove connection and involvement of accused in the crime in question. It is argued that accused-appellant Suresh Saini was tenant of accused Ashwani at Rewari and such relationship was established through the defence documents. He was found in Ashwani's Car at the time of arrest along with Ashwani in Kotputli. One revolver was also recovered from him vide Ex.P11, which was used to murder the deceased. Accused-Ashwani consulted Suresh Saini to frame plan to murder Shankar Lal. It was Suresh Saini, who brought Aman Jat to introduce him to Ashwani. Aman Jat later on formed the gang. Both Suresh Saini and Aman Jat separately and individually identified the house of Ashwani at Udai Nagar vide Ex.P14. As per the call details (Ex.P74-81) of the mobile of Aman and Ashwani obtained by the Investigating Officer, both of them were in regular contact with accused-Suresh Saini. It is argued that Govind Khinchi (PW1) has also given categorical statement that Suresh S/o Ganga Ram was present at the place of incidence. He further saw Suresh at the Police Station, hence identification of Suresh was got done through PW1. However, no question was put to him in this regard by the defence counsel in the cross examination, therefore, this fact should be deemed to be admitted by the accused. Shri Upendra Nath, learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that as per Ex.P52, ring and mobile of deceased Shankar Lal were recovered from the house of Aman. As per the call details, Aman had talks with accused Rajveer and Mannu @ Manoj at 12.20 PM and 6.08 PM on 22.11.2005. As per Ex.P74 to 81, accused-Aman was in regular touch with accused Ashwani and Suresh Saini. On his arrival at Jaipur, accused Rajveer telephoned Aman at 12.20 PM. Rahul Bhargava (PW8) identified Rajveer and other accused and stated the fact that he saw Rajveer and others that day at 1.00 PM. After committing the crime, again Rajveer talked to Aman at 6.08 Pm. Defence has given no explanation in this regard. Accused-Aman after getting information of arrest of other persons, absconded and was arrested after so many days. Rahul Bhargava (PW8) identified Rajveer and other accused and stated the fact that he saw Rajveer and others that day at 1.00 PM. After committing the crime, again Rajveer talked to Aman at 6.08 Pm. Defence has given no explanation in this regard. Accused-Aman after getting information of arrest of other persons, absconded and was arrested after so many days. It is submitted that when dead body and car of deceased Shankar Lal were examined, ring and mobile of deceased were not found therein, which were later on recovered at the instance of Aman. No question in cross examination was put on behalf of accused to explain the aforesaid fact. Phone details of accused Aman were confirmed by Shri Jagmohan Gupta (PW33). All this evidence directly connects accused Aman with the aforesaid crime. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that accused-appellant-Rajveer was identified by Gopiram (PW10), Rahul Bhargava (PW8) and Govind Khinchi (PW1) as the person seen at the place of incident and being actively involved in the crime. Reliance has been placed on proceedings of identification parade (Ex.P10 and P47) in this regard. It is argued that accused Aman had talks with Rajveer on phone at 12.20 pm on the date of incident and he was seen by Rahul Bhargava (PW8) at 1.00 pm at the place of incident. Dara Singh (PW17) as per Ex.P66 has stated that he saw Rajveer at the farmhouse of Shankar Lal on 11.11.2005. On 11.11.2005 at around 4.09 pm, a phone was received by Aman through land line phone installed within the vicinity of farm of deceased. It was admitted by accused Anil and accused Suresh (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7) during their identification parade before the Judicial Magistrate that Gopiram (PW10) gave them water to drink. It is argued that torn photo of deceased and key of deceased's car were recovered from accused Rajveer (Ex.P60). As per Ex.P59, the memo of place of incident, accused Rajveer had parked the Safari Car in which dead body of deceased was lying. Rajveer used stolen Maruti Car No.DL-6CE-0434 for arriving at the place of incident. Govind Khinchi (PW1) has categorically stated that while kidnapping the deceased, it was Rajveer, who was shouting “sale ke paise khata hai”. It clearly proved the involvement of the accused28 Rajveer in the aforesaid crime and therefore he was rightly convicted by the learned trial court. Rajveer used stolen Maruti Car No.DL-6CE-0434 for arriving at the place of incident. Govind Khinchi (PW1) has categorically stated that while kidnapping the deceased, it was Rajveer, who was shouting “sale ke paise khata hai”. It clearly proved the involvement of the accused28 Rajveer in the aforesaid crime and therefore he was rightly convicted by the learned trial court. As regards accused Vipin @ Vikky, learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that he was identified by Rahul Bhargava (PW8) and Govind Khinchi (PW1) as the person present at the place of incident. Ex.P5 is the memo of identification parade. It is argued that one `desi katta' (firearm-country made pistol) was recovered from Vipin and Ex.P45 is the seizure memo of the said firearm. Ram Pratap Singh (PW25), the Armourer Head Constable, has examined the said `desi katta' vide Ex.P97, which was found in working condition. It is argued that Gopiram (PW10), Rahul Bhargava (PW8) and Govind Khinchi (PW1) have consistently proved involvement of Vipin @ Vikky in the aforesaid crime. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that accused Suresh Dhanka was identified by Rahul Bhargava (PW8), Govind Khinchi (PW1) and Gopiram (PW10), who were present at the place of incident. Ex.P7 is the memo of identification parade. One blood stained pant (Ex.P26) was recovered from Suresh Dhanka and the blood of deceased was matching with the blood found on pant in FSL examination report (Ex.P96). It is argued that Gopiram (PW10) in his statement has stated that he gave drinking water to Suresh Dhanka and he identified him vide Ex.P7 before the Magistrate in identification parade. His foot wears also matched with the foot marks found on the site of incident. Memo of recovery of foot wears is Ex.P20 and FSL report in this regard is Ex.P129. No explanation in this regard was given by the defence. The site maps (Ex.P24 and Ex.P25) were got prepared on the basis of information given by accused Surendra, Suresh, Vikas @ Vikky and Anil @ Kaley, which also proved their active indulgence and involvement in the crime. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that accused Anil @ Kaley was identified by Rahul Bhargava (PW8) and Govind Khichi (PW1), who were present at the place of incident, vide memo of identification parade (Ex.P6). Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that accused Anil @ Kaley was identified by Rahul Bhargava (PW8) and Govind Khichi (PW1), who were present at the place of incident, vide memo of identification parade (Ex.P6). Gopiram (PW10) in his statement has stated that he gave drinking water to Suresh Dhanka and he identified him vide Ex.P6 before the Magistrate in identification parade. His foot wears also matched with the foot marks found on the site. Memo of recovery of foot wear is Ex.P21 and FSL report in this regard is Ex.P129. No explanation in this regard was given by the defence. Site maps (Ex.P24 & Ex.P25), which were got prepared by accused Surendra, Suresh, Vikas @ Vikky and Anil @ Kaley also prove their active involvement in the crime. As regards accused Mannu @ Manoj Dhobi (Sessions Case No.5/07), learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that he was identified during the identification parade as well as in the Court by Govind Khinchi, who was examined as PW16 in his trial, as the person, who shot at the deceased Shankar Lal. His identification parade was made vide memo Ex.P139. He was identified by Gopiram (PW2), Data Singh (PW3) and Govind Khinchi (PW16) as the persons actively involved in the crime. Dara Singh (PW3) had seen Mannu @ Manoj at Shankar Lal's farm on 11.11.2005. Gopiram (PW2) in his statement has stated that he gave drinking water to Suresh Dhanka and he identified him vide Ex.P6 before the Magistrate in the identification parade. Memo of identifying the place of incident (Ex.P141) and memo of identifying the farm house (Ex.P142) also connects the accused-appellant Mannu @ Manoj Dhobi with the aforesaid crime. Learned Special Public Prosecutor in support of his arguments has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Chaman Lal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.- AIR 2009 SC 2972 , Kehar Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.)- AIR 1988 SC 1883 , Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420 , Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat- (2013) 1 SCC 613 and Yogesh @ Sachin Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra- (2008) 10 SCC 394 in support of his arguments. vs. State (Delhi Admn.)- AIR 1988 SC 1883 , Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420 , Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat- (2013) 1 SCC 613 and Yogesh @ Sachin Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra- (2008) 10 SCC 394 in support of his arguments. Shri Harendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant adopting the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused-Ashwani is the master mind of the conspiracy and he, due to business rivalry with the deceased, hired the contract killers i.e. the other accused, to eliminate his brother-in-law Shankar Lal Agarwal. It is argued that element of previous enmity and motive is supported by the statement of Govind Khinchi (PW1), Alok Agarwal (PW6) and Madhu Agarwal (PW27). Recovery of articles like ring, mobile etc. from the accused-appellants clearly proves their active involvement in the crime. As per FSL report (Ex.P96), the shirt recovered from the accused had human blood, which tallied with the blood group of deceased found on his shirt. It is argued that the call details (Ex.P74 to 81) between the accused Aman, Ashwani and Suresh clearly show their involvement in the crime. In the test identification parade, the accused themselves have been identified by the witnesses. The learned trial court is thus perfectly justified in convicting the accused-appellants. Learned counsel for the complainant in support of his arguments has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Anthony D' Souza & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka- AIR 2003 SC 258 , State of Bihar vs. Anirudh Thakur & Ors.- (1998) 9 SCC 616 and judgement of this Court in Smt. Sohani vs. State, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.200/1983 decided on 27.5.2013. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The star witness of the prosecution in the present case is Govind Khinchi (PW1), who was employed with the deceased Shankar Lal Agarwal as driver. Govind Khinchi approached the Police Station along with one Sriram Agarwal and submitted the written report on 22.11.2005 at 8.00 PM. This report contained the first version given by him, according to which the incident took place at 6.00 PM. He stated that he was driving the Safari Car and Shankar Lal was boarding the same. Govind Khinchi approached the Police Station along with one Sriram Agarwal and submitted the written report on 22.11.2005 at 8.00 PM. This report contained the first version given by him, according to which the incident took place at 6.00 PM. He stated that he was driving the Safari Car and Shankar Lal was boarding the same. When they crossed the Rajpurwas Tala River, a mahroon colour Maruti car no.DL-6CE-0434 overtook them and two persons came out from the car towards the Safari Car. They were using abusive language for Shankar Lal Agarwal and their accent was haryanvi. One of them, who called Shankar Lal as bastard alleged that Shankar Lal Agarwal embezzled the money of his brother in law. Two persons suddenly came from behind the bushes and opened fire. Govind Khinchi then alighted from the Safari car and ran for his life towards the river and while so running, he heard the hue and cry of Shankar Lal Agarwal. This witness in his Court statement has withstood scrutiny of the cross examination. What is significant to the first version given by this witness is that he gave description of the maruti vehicle with its colour and also number of the accused boarding therein and that their accent being haryanvi and that one of them had at that very instant alleged that Shankar Lal Agarwal was responsible for embezzling the money of his brother-in law (Sala). These facts, find place in the written report, pointed the finger of suspicion towards Ashwani, brother-in-law of the deceased Shankar Lal, at the first available opportunity, with whom he had been having the business disputes. Before however we analyze the testimony of Govind Khinchi (PW1), we would like to deal with the testimony of son and wife of the deceased to find out whether there indeed a substance in the motive alleged against accused-appellant Ashwani and whether the rivalry between Shankar Lal Agarwal and Ashwani was so intense so as to drive the former to conspire for murder of the later. Alok Agarwal (PW6) is son of the deceased Shankar Lal Agarwal. He has stated that about 10-15 years ago, his father Shankar Lal Agarwal and maternal uncle Ashwani started property business in partnership. Ashwani was office bearer of Bhairav Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti (for short-`the Samiti') and thereafter his father-Shankar Lal became the office bearer. Alok Agarwal (PW6) is son of the deceased Shankar Lal Agarwal. He has stated that about 10-15 years ago, his father Shankar Lal Agarwal and maternal uncle Ashwani started property business in partnership. Ashwani was office bearer of Bhairav Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti (for short-`the Samiti') and thereafter his father-Shankar Lal became the office bearer. At the time of partition of business, Ashwani had stolen some blank pattas of the society, containing the signatures of Shankar Lal. This was the cause of dispute between them. The dispute became so serious that they were not on talking terms and two families stopped visiting each other. Ashwani used to threaten Shankar Lal on the strength of the aforesaid blank signed pattas and used to demand money from him. About one and half months before the incident, Ashwani had threatened to kill Shankar Lal Agarwal on phone. At times, while talking to each other on phone, they would become very excited and start speaking loudly. His father Shankar Lal Agarwal warned him (Alok Agarwal) to be beware of Ashwani as he had given death threat to him (Shankar Lal). His father used to visit the farm house at Tala River on Tuesday and perform puja there. He also used to observe fast on Tuesday and return back after the puja on the farm house to the residence. At 6.00 PM on 22.11.2005, while he was at his friend's residence in Vidhyadhar Nagar, he received a phone call from his mother that his father had been abducted. He immediately reached the house and went for Rajpurawas Tala River, where Govind Khinchi, the driver met him and informed him about the incident and also the fact that one of the person, who alighted from Maruti car, abused his father, alleging that he embezzled the money of his brother-in- law and two persons thereafter came from behind the bushes and opened fire. Govind said that he ran towards river but while running for his life, he heard the cry of his father. The accused had abducted his father in the Safari car. His father had three mobile phones. This witness further stated that he was fully confident at that very moment that it was Ashwani, who was responsible for the murder of his father. He had a talk with his father at about 5.25 PM on that day. The accused had abducted his father in the Safari car. His father had three mobile phones. This witness further stated that he was fully confident at that very moment that it was Ashwani, who was responsible for the murder of his father. He had a talk with his father at about 5.25 PM on that day. He saw a mahroon colour Maruti Car and few police officials. He was an attested witness to the panchnama Ex.P9 and seizure of clothes of his father vide Ex.P29, which were one shirt, one pant, one baniyan, one underwear and two socks, which all were soaked in blood. The dead body of his father was sent for the postmortem. The report whereof is Ex.P30. In cross examination, again he reiterated the dispute between Shankar Lal and his brother-in-law Ashwani about the blank pattas containing signatures of Shankar Lal Agarwal, which were stolen by Ashwani. His father on account of that relationship did not lodge any first information report against Ashwani and also did not report about the threat for his life received from Ashwani to the police. This witness has stated that earlier Ashwani used to work as Driver with his father as his father-Shankar Lal did not know how to drive the vehicle. His father built the temple in the farm house in 1990. Because when he reached the place of occurrence, Govind Khinchi told him that one of the accused alleged that Shankar Lal has embezzled money of his brother in law. At that instant, he told the police that by this the accused meant Ashwani. He could not explain why this was not mentioned in the police statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D1). Madhu Agarwal (PW27) stated that her husband was in property business for last about 25-30 years. He was President of Bhairav Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. Her brother accused-appellant Ashwani initially worked with him as his Driver and then he started property business with him from the year 1982-83. Ashwani also remained President of the said Samiti, but in 1991 certain disputes arose between the two and, therefore, they separated, but at that time, Ashwani stole 15 pattas, which were pre-signed by her husband and on the strength of those pattas, he used to threaten her husband Shankar Lal and blackmail him. The dispute came to such a level that they stopped talking to each other. The dispute came to such a level that they stopped talking to each other. He saw her husband in great tension on Deepawali of the year 2005. On enquiry, her husband told her that Ashwani had threatened that he (Shankar Lal) should handover the business of the Samiti to him (Ashwani), otherwise he would be killed. Thereupon, this witness talked to Ashwani on phone but he repeated the same threat on the same demand. Thereafter, this witness talked to Santosh, wife of Ashwani. She also stated that if the business of the said Samiti was not given to her husband (Ashwani), then whatever her husband had said, would certainly happen. After deepawali, this witness again received a phone call from Santosh, who enquired whether she (this witness) talked to her husband Shankar Lal about the demand of Ashwani. Santosh also stated that for last 10- 12 years Ashwani remained silent and if the demands was not fulfilled, Shankar Lal and their family would see the result and that they would take the business of Samiti at any cost, come what way. This witness stated that when she requested Santosh that she should advice Ashwani to stop spoiling the relations between two families and that if her husband (Shankar Lal) would be killed, Ashwani would also not be saved. Thereupon, Santosh replied that in case her husband Ashwani would go to jail for the murder of Shankar Lal, her son would look after his business. Thereafter, this witness and her husband (Shankar Lal) in order to ease out the tension went to Haridwar. While returning from Haridwar on 20.11.2005, they went to their relative Omi at New Delhi. Omi told them that Ashwani had come to him along with 2-4 miscreants and was enquiring about Shankar Lal Agarwal. Thereafter, this witness and Shankar Lal returned back to Jaipur. Her husband left for farm house after taking dinner on 21.11.2005. She talked to him in the morning of 22.11.2005. In the evening around 5-5.15 PM, her son received phone call from Shankar Lal Agarwal that he would soon come to home with milk, but unfortunately around 6-6.15 PM their driver Govind Khinchi informed her on telephone that Shankar Lal was abducted by 6-7 person, who came in a vehicle. She immediately informed her son about the same. On the following day in the morning, she learnt that her husband has been murdered. She immediately informed her son about the same. On the following day in the morning, she learnt that her husband has been murdered. At that very moment, she could relate the incident with her brother Ashwani and his wife Santosh that they are responsible for his murder because they used to frequently threaten. Her husband used to wear rings in fingers and bracelet and carry mobile phones. She submitted application to Superintendent of Police vide Ex.P101 and P102. The rings and mobile phones were identified by her vide Ex.P94. She has stated that one of the accused present in Court was her brother Ashwani. In cross examination, she submitted that police has recorded her statement on 17.1.2006 and that she did not submit any application to the police about the missing rings and mobile etc. prior to 16.2.2006. Both Alok Agarwal and Madhu Agarwal were subjected to extensive cross examination by the defence, but their testimony remained unshaken. Their statements clearly underlines the intensity of dispute between Shankar Lal Agarwal and Ashwani and which fact is borne out from the first version given to the police by Govind Khinchi that when they were attacked by the accused, one of the accused while abusing Shankar Lal Agarwal had alleged that (Shankar Lal) embezzled the money of his brother in- law and this brother-in-law was none else than Ashwani, as proved from the evidence. Informant Govind Khinchi (PW1), who submitted the written report (Ex.P1), has stated that he along with Shankar Lal Agarwal was going towards Jaipur in the Tata Safari Car about 5.15 PM from farm house on 22.11.2005. When they were crossing the Rajpurwas Tala River around 6.00 PM, one red colour maruti car no.DLC-E6-0434 intercepted them. When Shankar Lal Agarwal asked the car walas' to give way, 4-5 persons alighted from the car. Their accent was haryanvi and they were abusing Shankar Lal Agarwal. One of them stated that he had embezzled the money of his brother-in-law. Two persons came from behind the bushes and opened fire. Then 3-4 persons also came closer to him. This witness has repeated what he has stated in the written report that he on apprehending danger to his life, immediately opened the gate of vehicle and ran towards the village. Two persons came from behind the bushes and opened fire. Then 3-4 persons also came closer to him. This witness has repeated what he has stated in the written report that he on apprehending danger to his life, immediately opened the gate of vehicle and ran towards the village. He reached Rajpur Village and made a telephonic call to Police Station Chandwaji by a STD shop and thereafter, to the wife of Shankar Lal Agarwal and informed them about the incident. The accused who alighted from the maruti car were present in Court namely; Ashwani, Aman, Vipin, Anil, Suresh S/o Gangaram, Suresh S/o Prem Kumar, but the accused, who opened fire in the first instance at Shankar Lal Agarwal and the accused who came out from the bushes, were not amongst those present in Court and if they are brought before him, he could identify them. This witness also proved the site plan Ex.P3, to which he was an attesting signatory. He also proved the torn photo and key of safari (Ex.P4). He also proved the identification parade of accused Vipin vide Ex.P5 to which he was one of the attesting witnesses. This witness also touched Anil in the Court and stated that he (Govind Khinchi) had identified him as well before the Magistrate vide Ex.P6. He also identified Suresh S/o Prem Kumar before the Magistrate vide Ex.P7. His statement was recorded in the presence of Magistrate, which is Ex.P8. He also identified Rajveer Singh in Court and admitted that he had identified Rajveer Singh before the Magistrate during the identification proceedings Ex.P10, containing his signatures and stated that this accused was the one, who was driving the maruti vehicle at the time of accident. He also stated that Rajveer was the one, who was abusing Shankar Lal Agarwal and stated that he (Shankar Lal) had embezzled the money of his brother-in-law. Govind Khinchi (PW1) has been subjected to extensive cross examination by different advocates on behalf of different accused. In cross examination, he stated that after sometime he returned back to the place of incident around 7.15 PM and found two police personnel there, but no one from the family of Shankar Lal Agarwal reached there. Then gradually number of people assembled there. He has denied the suggestion that he did not tell the physiognomy of the accused to either police or family members of the deceased. Then gradually number of people assembled there. He has denied the suggestion that he did not tell the physiognomy of the accused to either police or family members of the deceased. Actually he around 7.30 PM went to the Police Station Chandwaji and submitted written report. Although in the written report, he did not give the physiognomy and colour and body structure of the deceased because at that time he was frightened and gave the brief written report. In written report (Ex.P1), he mentioned that two persons came out from the maruti car and two persons from the bushes, whereas the fact was that all four had come out from the maruti car. He got this report written from someone else. In cross examination, it was put to him why he did not mention in the written report that he fled towards the village, he thereupon has given a reasonable justification that a river was situated between the village and the place from where he was fleeing and, therefore, he has mentioned the river. These are very minor and insignificant omissions/alterations and cannot be a made a reason to ignore his entire testimony, which is otherwise firm and consistent. As far as cross examination, an example would suffice to explain how the facts were sought to be twisted so as to confuse the witnesses, which is that a question was put to Govind Khinchi in cross examination that he had mentioned in the written report (Ex.P1) that accused while abusing told Shankar Lal Agarwal that he (Shankar Lal) had embezzled the money of his brother in law and he could not explain why this fact was not mentioned in the written report, but when we see the written report, this fact is very much mentioned that one of the accused had so alleged. Sriram Agarwal (PW2) was author of the written report and he had written the same at the instance of Govind Khinchi (PW1). Both these witnesses have proved Ex.P2, the parcha FIR containing their signatures and panchnama of the dead body of the deceased Ex.P9. Then comes the statement of Shankar Lal (PW3), the Constable of Police Station, Kotputli that he along with SHO and other police personnel was on 'nakabandi' at Chowraha Kotputli. They received a wireless information around 9.30 PM that Shankar Lal Agarwal had been abducted by five persons in his Tata Siera. Then comes the statement of Shankar Lal (PW3), the Constable of Police Station, Kotputli that he along with SHO and other police personnel was on 'nakabandi' at Chowraha Kotputli. They received a wireless information around 9.30 PM that Shankar Lal Agarwal had been abducted by five persons in his Tata Siera. Then they received further information that one car no.RJ14-9C- 1335 coming towards Delhi, being driven by Ashwani, should be intercepted. This car indeed came to Kotputli crossing around 9.30 PM and when the PCR gave indication to stop, the driver did not stop the car and tried to flee away. Thereafter, it was chased and stopped in front of Diwas Hotel on the road leading to Bansur in Tehsil Kotputli. When the car was checked, two persons were found therein. On enquiry, one told his name as Suresh S/o Gangaram Mali and another as Ashwani Kumar S/o Laxmi Narayan. The information about the said vehicle was given on wireless to the Police Station Chandwaji whereupon Shankar Lal, ASI came along with police personnel. When the car was searched, one pistol was found in the pocket of Suresh Kumar and one shirt having blood stained marks on the shoulder, was found on the back seat. On enquiry, Ashwani claimed that it was his shirt. Two mobile phones and one suitcase was also found in the car. The pistol was seized vide Ex.P11 and shirt, indica car and mobile were seized vide Ex.P12. The site plan of the place where the car was stopped was exhibited as Ex.P13. This witness has identified Ashwani and Suresh Kumar as those who were found in the aforesaid indica car and also identified the articles, viz pistol (article-1), two mobiles-one of LG and another of Nokia make, (articles-2 & 3), which were claimed by Ashwani as his own. Article-14 was the shirt, which was also identified. Mukut Bihari Agarwal (PW4) has stated that he was called by Incharge, Police Station Chandwaji on 24.11.2005 to the Police Station. He along with Navratan Agarwal reached there. The police personnel took out accused Suresh from the custody and they along with Incharge and two-three Constables went to Jaipur. Article-14 was the shirt, which was also identified. Mukut Bihari Agarwal (PW4) has stated that he was called by Incharge, Police Station Chandwaji on 24.11.2005 to the Police Station. He along with Navratan Agarwal reached there. The police personnel took out accused Suresh from the custody and they along with Incharge and two-three Constables went to Jaipur. Suresh had guided them to the house at Udainagar-B, Mansarovar and told that he along with Ashwani and Aman hatched the conspiracy on the upper room of this house to murder Shankar Lal Agarwal and that Ashwani had taken them to show the farm house of Shankar Lal. The site plan of this house was prepared as Ex.P14 and site plan of the farm house was prepared as Ex.P15, which also contained his signatures. Few hairs of different accused namely; Suresh Dhanka Anil, Vikas and Surendra were sealed vide Ex.P16, 17, 18 and 19. These exhibits were signed by this witness Mukut Bihari Agarwal (PW4) and Navratan. Chappals of accused Suresh and Anil (Articles 5 & 4) were also seized vide Ex.P20 and P21 and sports shoes of Vikas and Surendra (Articles-7 & 6) vide Ex.P22 and P23. The site plan of the place where the Safari car was intercepted by the maruti car was prepared as Ex.P24 and that of the place where the Safari car was found was prepared as Ex.P25. Maliram (PW5) has stated that on the day of incident around 12-1.00 PM, he was sitting at Lakher Dhaba. A police vehicle came there with 3-4 police personnel, in which two were civilians. One of the civilian was with covered face, who was named as Suresh. A jeans pant (article 8) was recovered from there at his instance, which was sealed as Ex.P26 and site plan of the place was prepared as Ex.P27, which contained his signatures. Kesar Singh (PW7) has stated that while he was coming from Lakher towards Delhi, his relative Ram Singh met him at Tala Mode. He went to his village where a mahroon colour maruti car was seized around 7.00 PM before him by the police vide Ex.P30, which contains his signatures. One blanket, sweater, underwear, some creams and cosmetic items were recovered from that car. Thereafter, the car was taken to Police Station. Around 10.30-10.45, police received the information about the safari car parked close to the Dhaba at Laker. One blanket, sweater, underwear, some creams and cosmetic items were recovered from that car. Thereafter, the car was taken to Police Station. Around 10.30-10.45, police received the information about the safari car parked close to the Dhaba at Laker. He accompanied police to that place also. In that vehicle, a dead body was found, which was identified as that of Shankar Lal Agarwal. This body had a gun shot injury on the forehead. The safari car was also seized vide Ex.P31. A mobile soaked in blood was found from the seat next to driver, which was seized vide Ex.P32. In the night around 12.00, he returned back to the Police Station. Around 12.30-1.00 AM, Ashwani and Suresh were arrested by the police vide Ex.P33 and P34 respectively. The aforesaid memos of arrest Ex.P33 and 34 contained his signatures. Two empty cartridges and one live cartridge were seized vide Ex.P35. Foot prints were marked Ex.P36 and site plan was prepared as Ex.P3. Three empty cartridges were found in the safari vehicle, one close to the clutch paddle, one close to AC ventilator and one on the back seat. One used bullet was found fixed on the back of the seat next to that of the Driver. When police was making investigation, 2-3 persons for forensic investigation in civil dress were present. Three empty cartridges were recovered vide Ex.P37 and the used bullet was Ex.P38. Four hairs of different size were recovered from the roof of the back seat, which were seized vide Ex.P39. A foot mat behind the back of driver seat, having the blood stains was also seized vide Ex.P40. Finger prints from head cover of the seat behind the driver were also lifted vide Ex.P41. A ketli containing name of Madhu Devi @ Madhu Kumari W/o Shankar Lal was seized by the police and one trolley bag was also seized vide Ex.P42, in which Rs.20,000 and clothes of Shankar Lal were found. Certain pieces of seat cover were seized vide Ex.P43. A black colour Nokia mobile, having blood stains was seized vide Ex.P44. This witness had stated that he had gone to Laker to see a land for purchase on 26.1.2006. When he was returning back, he saw one boy along with police. Certain pieces of seat cover were seized vide Ex.P43. A black colour Nokia mobile, having blood stains was seized vide Ex.P44. This witness had stated that he had gone to Laker to see a land for purchase on 26.1.2006. When he was returning back, he saw one boy along with police. At the instance of this boy, a country made pistol (katta) was recovered vide Ex.P45 from the nala in between the two roads, which was filled with a wooden handle. Site plan of the place was prepared as Ex.P47. The country made pistol (article-15), which was recovered at the instance of Vipin, was identified by this witness. Mobile phone was article 16, which was found in the safari car and the open packet in which foot mat of the car was found, was article 17 and the open packet containing the head cover of seat was article 18. Pieces of seat near the seat of driver was article 19. Three used cartridges, which were found in the safari car and one used cartridge found at the place of incident are articles 20 and 21. Used bullets were article 22. Two used cartridges found on the place of incident were article 23. Rahul Bhargava (PW8) is yet another important witness. He has stated that while he was taking rest after lunch at dhaba of Shankar Gurjar near Shubham Resort, one red colour maruti-800 came there in which two persons were sitting on front seat and four on the back seat. These persons took bath in the dhaba. Out of them, 2-3 were around 18-19 years of age and 2-3 were around 20-21 years of age. After taking bath, they applied Ayur cream on their body and hairs. One boy, having waist size around 21-22 inches, was trying to wear the pant with the waist size of 35-36 inches. When this witness asked him the reason, he told that he forgot to bring his clothes therefore he was putting on pant of someone else. These accused were identified by this witness in the jail as also in the Court, as Rajveer, Vipin, Suresh S/o Prem Kumar and Anil. The test identification proceedings of them is Ex.P47, Ex.P5, Ex.P7, Ex.P6 respectively. This witness proved these memos and admitted his signatures on them. Babu Lal (PW9) has stated that in the month of December, he was coming from his in-laws' place. The test identification proceedings of them is Ex.P47, Ex.P5, Ex.P7, Ex.P6 respectively. This witness proved these memos and admitted his signatures on them. Babu Lal (PW9) has stated that in the month of December, he was coming from his in-laws' place. On Tala Mor (turn), he boarded the tractor of Murlidhar. On the way near Rajpur Nala, he saw the police vehicle. They got down from the vehicle and saw one person sitting in the police vehicle with covered face. This witness stated that this was the place wherefrom accused kidnapped Shankar Lal Agarwal. The site plan of the place was Ex.P48, which contained signature of this witness. Gopiram Yadav (PW10) has stated that on 22.11.2005 around 10.00 AM, he was working on the farm house at Rajpur Tala, suddenly, a red colour maruti vehicle came there in which six persons were sitting. This vehicle stopped at the farm house. Those sitting therein requested for drinking water and stayed there for about 15-20 minutes. When this witness enquired from them about the purpose of their visit, they told that they are waiting for another vehicle of their companion, which was about to reach. They tried to stay on the farm house. Thereupon, this witness told them to go for any hotel or dhaba, then they left the place. In the evening around 5.00 PM when this witness went to Rajpur Tala bus stand to have tea, he heard the hue and cry that Shankar Lal Seth has been murdered. He saw the same maruti vehicle parked about 40 feet away therefrom. This witness stated that he identified accused Anil in the identification parade vide Ex.P6 and accused Suresh S/o Prem Kumar vide Ex.P7, both containing his signatures. This witness also identified Suresh S/o Prem Kumar and Anil @ Kaley in court by touching as those who came to farm house and asked for water. Krishna Gopal (PW11) has stated that on 26.1.2006, he was driving the vehicle of Kesar Singh. On that day when he reached Shivam Motors, he heard Kesar Singh talk to someone. This witness was having tea and suddenly a police vehicle reached there. Accused Vipin got the country made pistol recovered from the place, which was marked as Ex.P45. Site plan of that place was Ex.P46. On that day when he reached Shivam Motors, he heard Kesar Singh talk to someone. This witness was having tea and suddenly a police vehicle reached there. Accused Vipin got the country made pistol recovered from the place, which was marked as Ex.P45. Site plan of that place was Ex.P46. This witness has also proved the arrest memo of Aman Jat as Ex.P51 and also recovery of two rings and one Nokia 1100 mobile from his room vide Ex.P52. The police also recovered one nokia 6600, three sims, one purse along with other articles from his room as Ex.P53. Police recovered Alto car no.HR-26N-5677 vide Exhibit P54. The site plan of the place was Ex.P55, which was prepared in his presence, containing signatures. Nand Lal (PW12), Head Constable has proved the arrest of Surendra Kumar and Vikas @ Vikky vide Ex.P57 and P56 respectively. Recovery of hair of Rajveer was made vide memo Ex.P58. Hukmaram (PW13) has proved the site plan prepared at the instance of Rajveer (Ex.P59) and recovery of key of tata Safari vehicle and torn photo of Shankar Lal Agarwal (Ex.P60). Site plan of the place from where said recovery was made, is Ex.P61. Mool Chand (PW14) has proved the site plan of the house at Udai Nagar-B vide Ex.P62 on 20.02.2006, which however belonged to Ashwani where he along with Aman and Suresh Dhanka hatched the conspiracy of murder of deceased Shankar Lal. Ram Singh (PW15) was witness to the site plan of the place from where recovery was made at the instance of Vipin vide Ex.P64 and site plan of the farm house at his instance Ex.P65. Mamraj Sharma (PW16), another important witness has stated that while he was going to his well on motor cycle with Mahesh Meena and Munshi around 5.30 PM on 22.11.2005 and was passing through Rajpurvas Nala, he saw one red colour maruti vehicle on the road. Three persons were standing there. On enquiry they told that they are waiting for the vehicle of their friend to arrive. One person was sitting in the maruti vehicle and three were standing on the sand dune (tila). They stayed there for about 5 minutes and returned back to Rajpurvas Bus Stand. Three persons were standing there. On enquiry they told that they are waiting for the vehicle of their friend to arrive. One person was sitting in the maruti vehicle and three were standing on the sand dune (tila). They stayed there for about 5 minutes and returned back to Rajpurvas Bus Stand. While this witness was having tea, suddenly Ramkaran with Govind Khinchi, driver of Shankar Lal Agarwal came there and requested him to immediately make a phone call to Police Station by mobile that someone has kidnapped his Sethji Shankar Lal Agarwal and he narrated the entire story. On this, he dialed 100 number. When the number did not connect with the mobile, they went to STD/PCO. On their return after making call, they saw that the maruti, which was earlier parked on the left side of the road, was now on the western side of the road. Dara Singh (PW17), another witness has stated that at 9.00 PM on 11.11.2005, when he was in the farm house of Shankar Seth along with Moola, Babulal and Mukesh, two persons came there. One disclosed his identity as Rajesh and another as Satbeer. Driver Govind Khinchi asked them to write down their names. Then Mukesh wrote their names on a piece of paper, which is Ex.P66 and handed over the same to the police after more than a month. Seizure of the said paper is Ex.P50. He has identified one of them as Rajveer in the Court, who had come on farm house to reki i.e. to study area and movement of deceased. This witness has also talked to Shankar Sethji. Suresh Kumar (PW18), Head Constable posted in Police Line Gurgaon has proved that he brought accused Vipin on production warrant to Police Station Chandwaji and that Shankar Lal, SI had arrested him vide Ex.P67 on which memo his signatures were obtained. Nand Singh (PW19), ASI of Police Station Chandwaji has proved deposit of 26 sealed packets with FSL vide Ex.P68 to 70. Ram Sharan (PW20) has proved deposit of three sealed packets with the FSL vide Ex.P71. Vikas Goyal, (PW21), yet another significant witness, stated that on 17.1.2006, he was working as Alternate Nodal Officer at Reliance Office, Jaipur. He issued the letter regarding call details of cell phone no.9351451655 vide Ex.P72 for the period from 1.10.2005 to 23.11.2005. Ram Sharan (PW20) has proved deposit of three sealed packets with the FSL vide Ex.P71. Vikas Goyal, (PW21), yet another significant witness, stated that on 17.1.2006, he was working as Alternate Nodal Officer at Reliance Office, Jaipur. He issued the letter regarding call details of cell phone no.9351451655 vide Ex.P72 for the period from 1.10.2005 to 23.11.2005. This phone was in the name of Rohit Agarwal, resident of 101/130 Meera Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur. He also issued the letter regarding call details of another cell phone no.9351451666 vide Ex.P73 in the name of same Rohit Agarwal at of same address. Call details of cell phone no.9351451655 are marked as Ex.P74 to P81. He has proved that on 1.11.2005, call was made from the above number 9351451655 at 12.36 PM to cell number 9829043061 and conversation took place for 668.04 seconds, which is indicated at part A to B of Ex.P77. Similarly, another call was made from Cell no.9351451655 to cell phone no.9813227710 at 15.52 O' clock for 119.02 seconds duration, which is marked as E to F at Ex.P77. Then again a call was made on 2.11.2005 at 17.11 O' clock on cell phone no.9813227710, which lasted to 82.07 seconds, marked as part G to H in Ex.P77. Again on 3.11.2005, a call was made to cellphone no.9829043061, at 09.59 PM, which lasted for 182.2 seconds, marked at part B to C of Ex.P78. Thereafter again call was made on 22.11.2005 to cell phone no.9416065680 at 18.41 hours, which lasted for 30.4 seconds and marked as I to J part in Ex.P77. Location of this cellphone at that time was found at Mansarovar, Jaipur. This cellphone number then again found operative at Mansarovar, Jaipur at 18.55 O' clock and thereafter at Chandwaji at 20.25 O' clock. Then at 22.04 O' clock, its location was at Paota, Kotputli and at 22.25 O' clock at Kotputli. Certificate of call details of this mobile no.9351451666 was produced at Ex.P82. This witness has proved his signatures on such certificate and also on Ex.P83 to Ex.P93 and has proved his signatures on each of them. Mahendra Pal Singh (PW26), the Nodal Officer, Bharti Hexacom Ltd., Jaipur has stated that mobile no.9829625189 was in the name of Ashwani Kumar S/o Laxmi Narayan, resident of 101/130 Meera Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, the certificate of which was Ex.P98. Mahendra Pal Singh (PW26), the Nodal Officer, Bharti Hexacom Ltd., Jaipur has stated that mobile no.9829625189 was in the name of Ashwani Kumar S/o Laxmi Narayan, resident of 101/130 Meera Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, the certificate of which was Ex.P98. A call was made from this phone to mobile no.9416065680 at 12.48 PM on 22.12.2005. Location of this mobile number at that time was at Mansarovar. Then at 1.00 PM again phone call was made from the same mobile number. At 11.18 in the night, location of this phone number was at Paota. At 1.04 PM on 22.11.2005, location of the phone was at Mansarovar. This witness has further stated that mobile no.9829024349 was in the name of Jitendra Kotriwala. Certificate Ex.P99 to this effect was proved by this witness. Mobile no.9829050029 was in the name of Rashmi Company and certificate whereof is Ex.P100. Jagmohan Gupta (PW33) has stated that he was posted as Assistant General Manager (Admn.) of BSNL, Rewari on 14.2.2006. According to Ex.P118, the mobile no.9416065680 was in the name of Aman Singh S/o Ratan Singh. It contains his signatures from A to B. Dr. Chetna (PW22), the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur has proved the identification parade proceedings (Ex.P10) in which accused Rajveer Singh was identified by witness Govind Khinchi in Central Jail, Jaipur and was also identified by Rahul Bhargava vide Ex.P47. She has proved her signatures and signatures of the witnesses & accused on both these proceedings. Vikram Singh (PW23), Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in his statement has proved the identification parade proceedings of accused Vipin @ Vikky vide Ex.P5, in which Govind Khinchi and Rahul Bhargava identified him in Central Jail, Jaipur. He has proved his signature and those of the accused and witnesses. He has also proved the identification parade proceedings of accused Anil @ Kale on 3.12.2005 in Central Jail, Jaipur by Gopiram, Govind Khinchi and Rahul Bhargava vide Ex.P6 and also proved his signature and signatures of witnesses. He has also proved the identification parade proceedings of accused Suresh S/o Prem Kumar on that day by witnesses Govind Khinchi, Gopi and Rahul Bhargava vide Ex.P7 and proved his signature and signatures of the witnesses. On that very day, identification parade proceedings of accused Vikas Kumar and Surendra were conducted in Central Jail, Jaipur, who were also correctly identified by the said witnesses. On that very day, identification parade proceedings of accused Vikas Kumar and Surendra were conducted in Central Jail, Jaipur, who were also correctly identified by the said witnesses. This witness has also proved Ex.P4, the torn photo of Shankar Lal, one key of the car with black remote, which was identified by Govind Khinchi. Statement of Govind Khinchi recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P8 was also proved by this witness. Identification parade proceedings of the two rings; one of gold and another of silver and one Nokia 1100 mobile was also proved by this witness vide Ex.P91, which was also separately identified by wife of deceased Madhu Agarwal. In the test identification parade proceedings conducted by this witness Vikram Singh (PW23), a note was put by him that the accused Anil and accused Suresh vide Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 stated that Gopiram (PW10) was the one who provided them water to drink in the farm house of Shankar Lal Agarwal. Ram Pratap Singh (PW25), Head Constable of Police Lines at Jaipur Rural has stated that on 30.1.2006, Constable Sohan Lal had brought to him a sealed packet and when he broke open the seal, he found a katta without number. That katta had a catch bearer. Although its trigger was hard, but it was in workable condition. After inspection, he resealed the katta and handed over the same to Constable Sohan Lal. His report is Ex.P97. He identified the said katta as article-15 in the court. Dr. R.K. Poonia (PW28), the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, SMS Hospital, Jaipur has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P30) of deceased Shankar Lal Agarwal. He has proved that deceased had six injuries. Injury no.1 was firearm entry wound on the forehead in the size of 3.1 cm x 3 cm x cavity with blackening and burning. Injury no.2 was firearm entry wound on front side of the left shoulder below 6.5 cm from collar bone in the size of 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm x chest cavity deep with burning blackening. Injury no.3 was firearm exit wound on the left side of the back in the size of 0.7 cm x 0.7 cm, but burning blackening was absent. Injury no.3 was firearm exit wound on the left side of the back in the size of 0.7 cm x 0.7 cm, but burning blackening was absent. Injury no.4 was firearm entry wound on the right side of the upper part of stomach towards lateral side in the size of 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm upto deep abdominal cavity and burning blackening was visible on the injury. Injury no.5 was firearm entry wound on front side of the left knee in the size of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep, but it did not have any burning or blackening. Injury no.6 was firearm entry wound on upper 1/3rd part of left thigh in the size of 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm x muscle deep with no burning but blackening. All the injuries were opined to be antimortem in nature and were caused by firearm at the same time. According to postmortem report conducted by the Medical Board, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of firearm injuries to head, lungs and stomach and injuries nos.1 to 4 were opined to be sufficient to cause death individually or cumulatively. Four bullets were removed from the body of the deceased. Shankar Lal (PW29), the Investigating Officer has stated that he was posted at Police Station Chandwaji on 22.11.2005. He received a phone call from Govind Khinchi at 6.00 PM that Shankar Lal Agarwal has been abducted by 6-7 persons in his safari car. On this information, he along with Ashok Kumar, SHO, Chandwaji went to the Nala at Tala Road. He was asked by Ashok Kumar at 9.20 PM to go for search at Shahpura-Kotputli National Highway No.8. He reached Kotputli at 10.30 PM. Ashok Kumar then called him that one Indica Car was intercepted at Deewan Hotel and he should reach there. He thereupon reached there. Ghanshyam Sharma, CI, SHO Kotputli was there, who had intercepted the aforesaid vehicle in which Ashwani Kumar and Suresh Saini were travelling. Indica Car was seized vide Ex.P12 in presence of the motbir witnesses. A blood stained shirt and two mobile phones; one of LG company and another of Nokia company in that car were seized from Ashwani. Site plan of the place was prepared as Ex.P13. One pistol was recovered from right pocket of Suresh Saini vide Ex.P11. Indica Car was seized vide Ex.P12 in presence of the motbir witnesses. A blood stained shirt and two mobile phones; one of LG company and another of Nokia company in that car were seized from Ashwani. Site plan of the place was prepared as Ex.P13. One pistol was recovered from right pocket of Suresh Saini vide Ex.P11. Accused along with recovered articles were brought to the Police Station Chandwaji. Postmortem of deceased Shankar Lal was conducted on 23.11.2005. Clothes, which the deceased was wearing were seized vide Ex.P29. Dead body of the deceased was handover to his son Alok Agarwal vide receipt Ex.P31. Accused Vipin was arrested vide Ex.P67. This witness has identified Ashwani and Suresh S/o Gangaram in the Court as the persons who were in the Indica car and were brought to Chandwaji Police Station from Kotputli. Vijendra Singh (PW30), Jagdish Prasad (PW31), Narendra Kumar Kachwaha (PW32), Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and Jagmohan Gupta, (PW33) Assistant General Manager (Administration), BSNL, Rewari have proved all the important stages of the investigation. Ram Kumar (PW35), the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Chandwaji has also proved the important stages of the investigation and also the various recoveries at the instance of accused. Ashok Kumar, SHO of Police Station Chandwaji has proved foot prints of the shoes and chappals of the accused, which were lifted from the place of occurrence. Ashok Kumar (PW34), the Investigating Officer, has proved all the stages of the investigation and all important memos, which have been discussed in detail in the impugned judgement by the learned trial court. Even when the trial against the other accused was pending, the supplementary charge sheet was filed by the prosecution against Mannu @ Manoj. Since substantial progress in the trial of other accused has been made, therefore, the trial court by order dated 19.01.2007 decided to try him separately. Prosecution produced 20 witnesses in that trial namely; Kashmir Singh (PW1), Gopiram (PW2), Dara Singh (PW3), Kesar Singh (PW4), Ram Karan (PW5), Mali Ram (PW6), Nihal Singh (PW7), Vikram Singh (PW8), Dr. R.K. Poonia (PW9), Smt. Madhu Agarwal (PW10), Krishna Gopal Sharma (PW11), Alok Agarwal (PW12), Ram Kumar (PW13), Jag Mohan Gupta (PW14), Vikas Goyal (PW15), Govind (PW16), Ashok Kumar (PW17), Chandan Dan (PW18), Shankar Lal S/o Prahlad Sahay (PW19), Shankar Lal S/o Agara Ram (PW20). R.K. Poonia (PW9), Smt. Madhu Agarwal (PW10), Krishna Gopal Sharma (PW11), Alok Agarwal (PW12), Ram Kumar (PW13), Jag Mohan Gupta (PW14), Vikas Goyal (PW15), Govind (PW16), Ashok Kumar (PW17), Chandan Dan (PW18), Shankar Lal S/o Prahlad Sahay (PW19), Shankar Lal S/o Agara Ram (PW20). Most of the exhibits in the trial of other accused were re-exhibited in the trial of Mannu @ Manoj. Most significantly Govind Khinchi, who was examined as PW1 in earlier trial of other accused was produced as PW16 in the trial of Mannu @ Manoj. While in earlier trial when he was examined as PW1, he identified Ashwani, Aman, Vipin, Anil, Suresh S/o Gangaram and Suresh S/o Prem Kumar not only in the test identification parade in jail but also in the Court, but he maintained that accused, who first of all opened fire by pistol at Shankar Lal Agarwal, after alighting from the maruti car, was not amongst those present in Court. But when he was examined as PW16 in the trial of Mannu @ Manoj, he identified Mannu @ Manoj in the Court as the one who opened fire at Shankar Lal Agarwal and the identification was preceded by test identification parade (Ex.P139) wherein also he correctly identified Mannu @ Manoj. Shri Vikram Singh (PW8). Additional Judicial Magistrate (JD) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur has proved the identification parade proceedings of accused Vipin vide Ex.P5 by Govind Khinchi and Rahul Bhargava, copy of which was Ex.P5A produced in this trial, and of accused Anil Ex.P6 by Govind Khinchi, Rahul Bhargava and Gopiram, copy of which is Ex.P6A, of accused Suresh @ Prem vide Ex.P7 by Govind Khinchi, Gopi and Rahul Bhargava, copy of which is produced as Ex.P7A in this trial. Proceedings of the identification of torn photo of Shankar Lal and one car key with remote, which was made by Govind Khinchi vide Ex.P4, was produced as Ex.P4A in this trial. Copy of statement of Govind Khinchi u/s.164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P8) was produced as Ex.P8A on record. Memo of identification of two rings; one of gold and another of silver and one Nokia 1100 mobile by Madhu Agarwal, wife of deceased vide Ex.P94, was produced as Ex.P94A. He has in this trial also proved the test identification proceedings of accused Mannu @ Manoj conducted on 6.10.2006 vide Ex.P139, in which he was correctly identified by the witnesses Gopiram, Dara Singh, Govind and Rahul Bhargava. He has in this trial also proved the test identification proceedings of accused Mannu @ Manoj conducted on 6.10.2006 vide Ex.P139, in which he was correctly identified by the witnesses Gopiram, Dara Singh, Govind and Rahul Bhargava. Gopiram (PW2) in the trial of Mannu @ Manoj has also proved the identification parade proceedings Ex.P139 and also identified him in the court and stated that it was he, who came to the farmhouse in the Maruti car and asked him for drinking water. Kashmir Singh (PW1), Head Constable, Police Station Chandwaji, Jaipur District has proved the way for arrest of Mannu @ Manoj vide Ex.P1. Dara Singh Gurjar (PW3) has stated that on 11.11.2005 at 9.00 PM, while he was at the farm house of Shankar Lal Agarwal and his cousin Mukesh and Govind driver were also there, somebody knocked the main gate. Shankar Lal asked him to go and find out who was knocking. He saw one white colour car having three persons in it. All three persons came inside the farm house. When Shankar Lal enquired from them the purpose of their visit, they stated that they wanted to buy some land nearby. Thereupon, Shankar Lal asked them that he would talk to them tomorrow. They demanded water and Mukesh made the water available to them. Govind driver noted their names. One of them told his name as Rajesh, second one as Manoj and third one as Satveer. Their vehicle number was also noted by Govind. This witness identified Mannu @ Manoj as one of those three persons, who had come to the farm house for reki and also correctly identified him in identification parade proceedings Ex.P139. Kesar Singh (PW4) has made statement similar to the one he gave in the previous trial of co-accused. Ram Karan (PW5) has stated that he has a shop of puncture repair of tyre at Shahpura in front of ATM of the bank. On 22.11.2005 at about 8.00-8.30 PM, a maruti car coming from Delhi side stopped near his shop. Two persons came out of it and then went to the nearby shop for purchase of `pan/biri'. Thereafter, another maruti car from Jaipur side came there. One person came out from the car, whose name was Ashwani. He was known to him from before because he used to deal in land business in that area. All three then talked to each other. Thereafter, another maruti car from Jaipur side came there. One person came out from the car, whose name was Ashwani. He was known to him from before because he used to deal in land business in that area. All three then talked to each other. Two persons came from Manoharpur side, they also joined them. One of them took a new shirt from Ashwani and gave his shirt to Ashwani. Ashwani put that shirt in his car. Two persons who came from Manoharpur side then left towards Delhi in a truck. One person who came in maruti car from Delhi side, went with Ashwani in his car to Kotputli and second one went towards Jaipur. When this witness enquired the purpose of their visit from Ashwani, he told that these persons had come to him from Rewari for purchase of land, therefore, he had come there. Ram Karan (PW5), Nihal Singh (PW7), Dr. R.K. Poonia (PW9), Smt. Madhu Agarwal (PW10), Krishna Gopal Sharma (PW11), Alok Agrawal (PW12), Ram Kumar (PW13), S.I. Chandwaji , Vikas Goyal (PW15), Ashok Kumar (PW17), Chandan Dan (PW18) SHO Chandwaji, Shankar Lal Gurjar (PW19) L.C., Police Station Kotputli, Shankar Lal (PW20), Sub-Inspector Police Station Chandwaji have made statements similar as to the one made in the trial of other co-accused. The law regarding criminal conspiracy is well settled that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators. Meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution. Criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. However, the common experience is that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available, therefore, to prove such conspiracy, the circumstances during and after the occurrence have to be considered. Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code provides that criminal conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done, an act which is illegal and Section 120B provides for punishment for such conspiracy. Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code provides that criminal conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done, an act which is illegal and Section 120B provides for punishment for such conspiracy. The Supreme Court in Yogesh @ Sachin Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra- (2008) 10 SCC 394 has held as under: “The basis ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are (i) an agreement between two or more persons, (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. Yet, as observed by this Court in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators. Therefore, the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution.” The Supreme Court in Chaman Lal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.- AIR 2009 SC 2972 has held as under: “Essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both; and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.” In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar- AIR 1994 SC 2420 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “........it is common experience and goes without saying that only in very rare cases one may come across direct evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit any crime and in most of the cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available from which an inference giving rise to the conclusion of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence may be legitimately drawn.” The Supreme Court in Kehar Singh vs. the State (Delhi Admn.)- AIR 1988 SC 1883 has also held on the issue as under: “...Section 120A provides for the definition of criminal conspiracy and it speaks of that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act and Section 120B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy and it is interesting to note that in order to prove a conspiracy it has always been felt that it was not easy to get direct evidence. It appears that considering this experience about the proof of conspiracy that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted.” In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat- (2013) 1 SCC 613 , the Supreme Court has reiterated the view it had taken in Chaman Lal, supra. Evidence critically analysed above shows that the conspiracy to commit the murder of Shankar Lal was hatched in the house of Ashwani at Udai Nagar-B, Mansarovar, Jaipur by Ashwani, Aman and Suresh Saini, jointly and then each one of them, acted for attaining the object of the conspiracy i.e. to murder Shankar Lal Agarwal. Govind Khinchi (PW1), who is the key witness of the prosecution was lastly with the deceased. He in the cross examination stood by his original version. His version as given in the written report has substantially remained the same throughout the trial and finds corroboration from evidence of other witnesses. Accused Rajveer Singh has been identified in the test identification proceedings Ex.P10 proved by Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur Dr. Chetna (PW22). He in the cross examination stood by his original version. His version as given in the written report has substantially remained the same throughout the trial and finds corroboration from evidence of other witnesses. Accused Rajveer Singh has been identified in the test identification proceedings Ex.P10 proved by Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur Dr. Chetna (PW22). Objection raised by Rajveer that he was shown by the police to Govind Khinchi, would not mitigate his guilt because Govind Khinchi in his first version had clearly stated that if accused are brought before him, he can identify them and maintained that version throughout. Genuineness of the version of the Govind Khinchi is proved from the fact that in the earlier trial when five accused were present in Court, he stated that in none of them was the person, who first opened fire at Shankar Lal and he identified such person as Mannu @ Manoj when he was later produced in the test identification parade and also in Court on the basis of supplementary charge sheet in subsequent trial. Govind Khinchi (PW1) has stated that Rajveer was the accused who had abused Shankar Lal stating that he embezzled the money of his brother-in-law. This fact gets corroboration from his version in the written report Ex.P1. Mamraj Sharma (PW16) corroborated what has been stated by Govind Khinchi. He has stated that Govind Khinchi came to him and asked to make call to the police as Shankar Lal had been kidnapped. He tried to dial 100 number of police help, which did not materialise from the cell phone. They then went to STD and made the call. This witness had identified the mahroon colour maruti car used by the accused, which was found close to the place of incident. Govind Khinchi (PW1) has identified accused Vipin, Anil, Suresh S/o Prem Kumar in the test identification parade. His statement as given to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was substantially the same that one of the accused had first opened two fires at Shankar Lal Agarwal by pistol. If Govind Khinchi (PW1) fled from the safari car towards the river, that was his spontaneous and natural reaction as he had to save his life because suddenly the maruti car intercepted the safari car and the accused attacked them, for which neither Shankar Lal, nor Govind Khinchi was prepared. If Govind Khinchi (PW1) fled from the safari car towards the river, that was his spontaneous and natural reaction as he had to save his life because suddenly the maruti car intercepted the safari car and the accused attacked them, for which neither Shankar Lal, nor Govind Khinchi was prepared. We are not inclined to uphold the contention that his conduct was unnatural. This was rather his natural conduct. If in the written report Govind Khinchi (PW1) has mentioned that out of four accused, two persons came from bushes, that does not diminish the evidentiary value of his testimony as written report is quite brief. Govind Khinchi in cross examination has stated that he was quite frightened at that time. The written report was submitted within two hours of the incident, even though the Police Station was situated about 10 kms. from the place of incident. The lodgement of First Information Report also cannot be said to be therefore delayed. Evidence proves that after the conspiracy was hatched by Ashwani along with Aman and Suresh Saini, three of the accused had gone for reki to the farm house of Shankar Lal Agarwal. They were informed by Ashwani that Shankar Lal always goes to farm house on Tuesday for performing puja and would return back in the evening. Ashwani being brother-in-law of the deceased, knew about his routine. Accused Ashwani is shown to be in telephonic conversion by his mobile no.9351451655 with Aman on his mobile no.9416065680. On 1.11.2005, accused Ashwani had called Shankar Lal on his mobile no. 9829043061 at 12.36 PM and talked to him for as long as 668.04 seconds, which is proved from Ex.P77. Then accused Ashwani received a call from number 9351451666 on his phone number 9351451655 at 12.55 PM. (Ex.P74). Thereafter Ashwani talked to deceased on his cellphone at 9.59 PM on 3.11.2005 for as long as 182.2 seconds (Ex.P78). All these lend credence to the version of Madhu Agarwal and Alok Agarwal, the wife and son respectively, of the deceased that they heard deceased talk to Ashwani on phone on 1.11.2005 in which Ashwani threatened deceased with death if he did not fulfill his demands. Mobile no.9416065680 was issued in the name of Aman, has been proved by certificate Ex.P118, which has been proved by Jagmohan Gupta (PW33), Assistant General Manager (Administration), BSNL, Rewari. Mobile no.9416065680 was issued in the name of Aman, has been proved by certificate Ex.P118, which has been proved by Jagmohan Gupta (PW33), Assistant General Manager (Administration), BSNL, Rewari. The above mobile no.9351451655 was recovered from Ashwani when the car was intercepted at Kotputli and he was arrested. Vikas Goyal (PW21), who was then working as Alternate Nodal Officer in Reliance Telecom Office, Jaipur on 17.1.2006 has proved Ex.P72, call details of mobile no.9351451655 for the period from 1.11.2005 to 23.11.2005. He has stated that this mobile was issued in the name of Rohit Agarwal, S/o Ashwani on his residential address-101/130 Meera Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar. He has also proved that another mobile no.9351451666 was also in the name of Rohit Agarwal with the same address. The certificate whereof was Ex.P73. The call details of mobile no.9351451655 are contained in Ex.P74 to 81. Mahendra Pal Singh (PW26) has proved the required certificate Ex.P98 that mobile no.9829625189 was in the name of Ashwani Kumar S/o Laxmi Narayan which was issued to him on his address 101/130 Meera Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur and that in the afternoon on 22.11.2005 at 12.48 PM a phone call was made from this mobile number to mobile number 9416065680. At that time, the location of this mobile number was at Mansarovar. However, in night at 11.18 PM, its location was at Paota. This witness has proved that mobile no.98290-24349 was in the name of Jitendra Kotriwala, certificate whereof is Ex.P99. Mobile No.9829050029 was in the name of Rashmi company, certificate whereof is Ex.P100. This witness was Nodal Officer of Bhartiya Hexacom Ltd., Malviya Marg, CScheme, Jaipur. Jagmohan Gupta (PW33), the Assistant General Manager (Admn.), BSNL, Rewari on 14.2.2006 has proved that mobile no.9416065680 was in the name of Aman. Evidence has also proved that when police has intercepted the vehicle, he was found in possession of the said mobile and that contact was made by this phone at 22.25 hours on 22.11.2005 at Kotputli. There was no explanation by Suresh Saini as to how the pistol (article-1) was found in his possession and why shirt, found from his vehicle, was having blood stains. The FSL report Ex.P129 has proved that the foot prints that were lifted from the place of incident also matched with those of Anil @ Kale and Suresh Kumar Dhanka. There was no explanation by Suresh Saini as to how the pistol (article-1) was found in his possession and why shirt, found from his vehicle, was having blood stains. The FSL report Ex.P129 has proved that the foot prints that were lifted from the place of incident also matched with those of Anil @ Kale and Suresh Kumar Dhanka. Contention that house at Udai Nagar-B, Mansarovar has wrongly been cited by the police as the place where the conspiracy was hatched, cannot be accepted because Ashwani could not easily choose his regular house at Meera Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur to hatch such a serious conspiracy. Tendency of the criminal mind is to enter into conspiracy not at the regular place, but it rather selects secret place. In the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that each of the accused should be known to every member of unlawful assembly working for the purpose of conspiracy, but they should be aware of the ultimate object of the conspiracy that was to be achieved. In the present case, each of the accused worked for the object of eliminating/liquidating Shankar Lal Agarwal. On the day of incident, both Aman and Ashwani talked to each other from their cell phones on 22.11.2005 at 18.41, 18.55, 20.25, 22.4 and 22.25 o'clock and the location of cell phone of Ashwani at that time was indicated at Mansarovar, Chandwaji, Paota and Kotputli respectively. Similarly Ashwani has called Aman on 22.11.2015 at 7.30, 16.22 and 21.19 hours and the location of his cellphone was at Mansarovar, Malviya Nagar and Shahpura. This proves that Ashwani stayed till 6.45 PM at the place of incident and then he reached Chandwaji at 8.25 PM and Shahpura at 9.30 PM and Paota at 10.05 PM and Kotputli at 10.25 PM. Thus in total that day they talked to each other on eight occasions. Sanction of prosecution of accused Vipin @ Vikky and Suresh Kumar S/o Gangaram for offence u/s.3/25 of the Arms Act vide Ex.P138 by the District Magistrate has been proved by Chandan Dan (PW36), who has identified signatures of the District Magistrate Shri Rajeshwar Singh. It is also proved from the report of Rajeshwar Singh that the two weapons were country made pistol/desi katta and were in workable condition. The prosecution thus succeeded in proving that the weapon recovered from Suresh Kumar S/o Gangaram was used for commission of crime. It is also proved from the report of Rajeshwar Singh that the two weapons were country made pistol/desi katta and were in workable condition. The prosecution thus succeeded in proving that the weapon recovered from Suresh Kumar S/o Gangaram was used for commission of crime. The blood found on the pants of Suresh Dhanka matched with the blood group of deceased. No explanation was given by the defence therefore. Shirt that was recovered from the vehicle of Ashwani was also found to contain blood stains, matching with the blood group of deceased, as per the FSL report Ex.P96, wherefore also no explanation has been given. Merely because the woman who brought the key of the room of Aman and the person who brought the key of the car were not produced, does not diminish the evidentiary value of the recovery made at the instance of accused persons because otherwise all the circumstances are fully against accused persons. The evidence does show that there was meeting of minds among these three persons to do murder of Shankar Lal Agarwal by unlawful design, in furtherance of which the other accused also joined hands with them and each one of them worked towards attainment of that object. The point of time when the alleged crime for that unlawful conspiracy started, was the meeting, which they had conducted in the room at first floor of the House no.49, Udai Nagar-B Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur. We are not inclined to uphold the contention that requirement of the certificate on prescribed proforma as per Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act in terms of judgement of Supreme Court in Anvar P.V., supra was not complied with. Ex.P72 is the certificate signed by authorised signatory of Reliance Infocomm, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, which has been proved by Vikas Goyal (PW21). Ex.P73 is the letter with which the call details in respect of mobile no. 9351451655 of Rohit Agarwal was produced on record as Ex.P74 to P81. Vikas Goyal (PW21) has also proved another certificate Ex.P82 giving the details of communication from the period 1.11.2005 to 22.11.2005 (Ex.P83 to Ex.P93) in respect of mobile no.9351451666 in the name of Rohit Agarwal, son of Ashwani on his residential address at 101/130 Meera Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur used by Ashwani. Vikas Goyal (PW21) has also proved another certificate Ex.P82 giving the details of communication from the period 1.11.2005 to 22.11.2005 (Ex.P83 to Ex.P93) in respect of mobile no.9351451666 in the name of Rohit Agarwal, son of Ashwani on his residential address at 101/130 Meera Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur used by Ashwani. On this very address, connection of his (Ashwani) another cell no.9829625189 was given, has also been proved by Mahendra Pal Singh (PW26). Ex.P118 is the required certificate issued by Jagmohan Gupta, (PW33) Assistant General Manager (Administration), BSNL, Rewari addressed to SHO Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur proving that mobile no.9416065680 was in the name of Aman Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Resident of Village Dhanora, P.O. Chillarh, Tehsil and District Rewari in State of Haryana. Even if, therefore, certificate required under Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act has not been furnished with respect to this cellphone of Aman Singh, the certificate produced for two cell phones of Ashwani showing the telephonic conversion between Ashwani and Aman Singh, would be sufficient compliance of that provision in so far as proof of such conversation is concerned. Besides, the fact that cellphone no.9829050029, 9829043061 and 9829024349 belonged to Shankar Lal Agarwal has also been proved by his son Alok Agarwal. The IMEI number of first of these mobiles has been proved vide Ex.P136 and P137. The Supreme Court in G.Parshwanath, supra while dealing with the law with regard to circumstantial evidence has held that it is not derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times, it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not.” In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. Their Lordships further held that in deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court. In our considered opinion, the guilt of the accused-appellants not only on each of the primary facts have been individually proved, but such facts cumulatively lead to an irresistible inference of the guilt of accused-appellants. Each of the circumstances proved against the accused were put to them in their examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. but they failed to offer any plausible explanation therefore. In the common course of nature of elements and human conduct and their relations in the present case points to their guilt ruling out every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved and the chain of circumstances is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and show that in all human probability the alleged offence has been committed by them in furtherance of the conspiracy and the common object, which was to commit the murder of Shankar Lal Agarwal. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgements dated dated 2.2.2007 (Sessions Case No.17/06) and 30.7.2007 (Sessions Case No.35/08) passed by the learned trial court. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed.