JUDGMENT 1. - The above-noted three Criminal Appeals have been filed by the three different accused appellants before this Court. Accused Appellant - Madan Mohan has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal Number 410 of 2008 and accused appellant - Hari Kishan Rawat has filed D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 411 of 2008. Both the appeals are against the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2010, has been preferred by accused appellant - Anand @ Gango @ Ganga against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2009, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 07/2008. All the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused appellant - Madam Mohan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2008):- Under Section 120-B IPC: Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 396 IPC: Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Accused appellant - Anand @ Gango @ Ganga (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 85/2010):- For offence under Section 395/120-B: Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 396/120-B IPC: Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences shall run currently. 2. The above-noted Criminal Appeals arise out of the same incident for which an FIR No. 155 of 2004 was registered for offence under Sections 395, 396 and 302 IPC, at Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, on 6th July, 2004, at 2.30 P.M. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 6th July, 2004, one Brij Mohan Dhoot submitted a report to the Station House Officer, Police Station - Shatri Nagar, Jaipur, stating that he is a tenant in House No. C-13, 14, Sikar House Colony on the ground floor. Landlord - Lalit Prasad Natani resides with his family on the first floor of the said house. Landlord - Lalit Prasad Natani resides with his family on the first floor of the said house. At about 12.30 P.M., four persons entered the first floor of the house and he was under the impression that known persons might have come to meet the landlord. At about 4.35 P.M., his son Ankesh (PW2) also reached the house. At that time, he heard the noise of some persons climbing down the stairs. The complainant and his son spotted four persons rushing towards the gate. When Ankesh (PW2) tried to stop them, three of them ran away from there and one of them was caught hold of by the complainant and his son. In the meantime, neighbours, namely, Vinod and some other persons came and inquired for whereabouts and the reasons from the person caught, who stated that they had come to meet Niranjan, the servant of the landlord on the first floor. When the complainant went to the first floor, he found all the articles scattered here and there and Hemlata was lying in an unconscious condition with her mouth and neck tied with a cloth. In another room, servant Niranjan was lying with hands tied on to his backside. Hemlata was untied and the police was informed. Thereafter, Hemlata was rushed to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The person caught disclosed his name as Hari Kishan Rawat and also admitted the fact that he along with other three persons committed dacoity and murdered Hemlata. 4. On the basis of the information aforesaid, First Information Report Crime No. 155 of 2004 was registered for offence under Section 395, 396 and 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation, involvement of servant Niranjan, who was a minor, also surfaced. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant Hari Kishan Rawat. The co-accused appellants - Madan Mohan and Anand @ Gango @ Ganga and Naresh were proceeded with under Section 299 Cr.P.C. On arrest, a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed against the accused appellant - Madan Mohan. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants - Hari Kishan Rawat and Madan Mohan for offence under Section 395, 396, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. 5. The accused appellants denied all the charges levelled against them. Accused appellant - Anand @ Gango @ Ganga was arrested on 27th June, 2006. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants - Hari Kishan Rawat and Madan Mohan for offence under Section 395, 396, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. 5. The accused appellants denied all the charges levelled against them. Accused appellant - Anand @ Gango @ Ganga was arrested on 27th June, 2006. Accused Niranjan was proceeded with under the Juvenile Justice Act, since he was a minor. The prosecution, to prove its case examined as many as 20 witnesses and 60 documents were got exhibited. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded false implication on the basis of the presumption and circumstantial evidence. 6. The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence and materials available on record, by the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2007 and 27th August, 2009, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid. 7. For the purpose of clarity each of the appeal needs to be discussed separately, but within this judgment. Therefore, this Court proceeds to deal with the appeal of the accused appellant - Madan Mohan at the first instance, who has been convicted by the impugned judgment and order dated 20th June, 2007. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2008 - Madan Mohan v. State of Rajasthan : 8. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel for the accused appellant - Madan Mohan, has raised the following contentions:- Firstly, the recovery memo dated 7th November, 2004 (Ex.P24) drawn as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, on 4th November, 2004 (Ex.P23), detailing out item-wise recovery of 12 articles, is not a reliable piece of evidence for out of the two witnesses of the recovery memo, namely, Damodar Das and Brij Mohan (PW16), only one PW-16, produced in evidence, who is a Police Constable, and therefore, the recovery of the articles, at the instance of the accused appellant - Madan Mohan, is highly suspicious. Secondly, the accused appellant - Madan Mohan was arrested from West Bengal, but after his arrest, he has been shown to the witness at Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, on 29th October, 2004, at 10.20 a.m. (Ex.P1). Thirdly, the articles as detailed out in the list dated 6th July, 2004 (Ex.P6), have not been recovered and/or identified by Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4). Thirdly, the articles as detailed out in the list dated 6th July, 2004 (Ex.P6), have not been recovered and/or identified by Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4). Further, out of 15 articles, only 4 items were identified by Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4), which were not included in the list (Ex.P6). Fourthly, in the identification parade (Ex.P4), the accused appellant - Madan Mohan was though correctly identified by Ankesh (PW2) and Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4), but this identification parade is of no consequence for the accused appellant was shown to the witness in the Police Station and a note to this effect was specifically entered in the memo of the identification parade (Ex.P4). Fifthly, Nahar Singh (PW8), admitted in his cross-examination that he had no knowledge of the jurisdiction of the Police Station from where the accused appellant Madan Mohan was arrested. It is further admitted that the Investigating Agency had gone to arrest the accused appellant with an arrest warrant, but he was brought to Jaipur from Calcutta without effecting any arrest. The accused appellant was also not produced before any Judicial Officer by the Police Officer for the transit remand. It took three days to the enforcement agency to bring the accused appellant from Calcutta to Jaipur. The fact of arrest of the accused appellant from Calcutta was not recorded as is evident from the materials available on record rather his arrest was shown at Jaipur. Sixthly, Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4), did not disclose anything about the description of the accused appellant on the basis of which he identified the accused appellant, which lends support to the defence stand that the accused appellant was shown to the witness in the Police Station. Seventhly, the identification of the accused appellant by Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4), is of no consequence for according to the prosecution case, Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4), was not present at the place of incident. Eighthly, there is no evidence of finger prints or foot prints, collected from the scene of the crime, which could link the accused appellant with the crime. Lastly, the articles, which have been disclosed in the list (Ex.P6), have not been recovered rather artificial/imitations were recovered, which were not detailed out in the list (Ex.P6). 9. Mr. Eighthly, there is no evidence of finger prints or foot prints, collected from the scene of the crime, which could link the accused appellant with the crime. Lastly, the articles, which have been disclosed in the list (Ex.P6), have not been recovered rather artificial/imitations were recovered, which were not detailed out in the list (Ex.P6). 9. Mr. R.S. Raghav, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State-respondent, has claimed that the recovery was effected at the instance of the accused appellant - Madan Mohan. Ankesh (PW2) and Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4) correctly identified the accused appellant. Moreover, even if, the identification of the accused appellant by Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4), was to be ignored, the evidence deposed by Ankesh (PW2), is worthy of reliance for he was present at the spot and caught hold of the accused appellant - Hari Kishan Rawat while the accused appellant - Madan Mohan made good his escape. Ankesh (PW2) has specifically stated in his deposition before the Trial Court that names of the accused appellant and other co-accused persons were disclosed by the co-accused appellant - Hari Kishan Rawat, who was caught red handed on the spot. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the fact of disclosure of the names of the accused appellant and co-accused persons by Ankesh (PW2) in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., soon after the incident further lends supports to the prosecution story. Further, the prosecution witness Ankesh (PW2), was not confronted by the accused appellant(s) with his statement recorded during the course of the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 11. The accused appellant furnished information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P23) and as a consequence, 12 articles were recovered (Ex.P24) and item No. 1 and 4, as detailed out in Ex.P6 i.e. list of the articles furnished, which was subject matter of the crime and matched with the articles recovered, and therefore, the case of the prosecution stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt. 12. The identification of the 4 articles out of 15, recovered at the instance of the accused appellant, were identified correctly and this fact has been proved by Smt. Namita Dhand (PW19), while working as Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Nahar Singh (PW8) is a prosecution witness, who has deposed in support of the recovery memo (Ex.P24). 12. The identification of the 4 articles out of 15, recovered at the instance of the accused appellant, were identified correctly and this fact has been proved by Smt. Namita Dhand (PW19), while working as Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Nahar Singh (PW8) is a prosecution witness, who has deposed in support of the recovery memo (Ex.P24). Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond any reasonable doubt. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 411/2008 - Hari Kishan Rawat & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan : 13. Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, learned counsel for the co-accused appellant - Hari Kishan Rawat, while reiterating and endorsing the arguments advanced by the Senior Counsel for the co-accused appellant - Madan Mohan, in addition argued that letter (Ex.P19), which was allegedly recovered from the bag belonging to Niranjan (the juvenile delinquent), cannot be made basis to link the accused appellant with the crime. He further submitted that the accused appellant - Hari Kishan Rawat, was arrested on 6th July, 2004, as would be evident from Ex.P46 at 6.15 p.m. whereas the recovery memo (Ex.P18), reflects that it was drawn at 1.25 p.m. to prove the recovery. Therefore, the recovery effected, allegedly at the instance of the accused appellant on the basis of information furnished by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; is highly suspicious rather manipulated. 14. Referring to Ex.P19, learned counsel urged that the letter recovered from the bag of Niranjan (the juvenile delinquent), neither bears any date nor its translation is authenticated. For, the translator Anjali Mahapatra (PW5), did not acquire any skill or expertize in translation from 'Udiya' language to Hindi and this fact has been admitted in cross-examination by her. Therefore, no evidenciary value could be attached to the translation of the letters i.e. Ex.P18 and Ex.P19, which were translated by Ms. Anjali Mahapatra (PW5). Moreover, the Government Enforcement Agency forced the accused appellant to write the letter in the Police Station. The accused appellant specifically pleaded this fact before the Trial Court in reply to question No. 15 while his statements were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the defence of the accused appellant is more probabilised rather than the prosecution story. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is bad in the eye of law. The accused appellant specifically pleaded this fact before the Trial Court in reply to question No. 15 while his statements were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the defence of the accused appellant is more probabilised rather than the prosecution story. Hence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is bad in the eye of law. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 85/2010 - Anand @ Gango @ Ganga v. State of Rajasthan : 15. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Learned Senior Counsel, while assailing the conviction of the co-accused appellant, in addition to the grounds pleaded while questioning the conviction of co-accused Madan Mohan in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 410/2008; asserted that the accused appellant was arrested on 27th June, 2006, at 10.00 p.m. from Calcutta (West Bengal), as would be evident from Ex.P62, and was subjected to test identification parade on 4th July, 2006, wherein he was correctly identified by Ankesh (PW2) for he saw the accused appellant while he was making his good escape after committing the crime. According to the learned counsel, this piece of evidence could have been relied upon for no description about the appearance of the accused appellant, was stated to the witness (PW2) to the Investigating Agency. Moreover, Ankesh (PW2), saw the accused appellant only for a moment when he turned looked back while making good his escape. 16. Further, there is no independent witness of the memo (Ex.P63) dated 10th July, 2006, drawn allegedly on the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to recovery of looted articles through recovery memo (Ex.P64), which was drawn on 14th July, 2006. Moreover, Jai Singh (PW25), the Police Constable, who was cited as one of the witness of the recovery proceedings, was produced before the Trial Court whereas the independent witness of the recovery memo, namely, Ganesh was not produced for he would not have supported the prosecution story. While, the recovery was effected from the residence of the accused appellant in the State of Orissa. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the relevant record and carefully perused the impugned judgment and order. 18. In the crime of the nature-one in the instant case at hand, the evidence, which is available can be broadly classified into three categories, namely, (i) accused persons caught red-handed at the spot. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the relevant record and carefully perused the impugned judgment and order. 18. In the crime of the nature-one in the instant case at hand, the evidence, which is available can be broadly classified into three categories, namely, (i) accused persons caught red-handed at the spot. Though it rarely happens, but in the instant case at hand, co-accused - Hari Kishan Rawat was caught red handed on the spot; (b) identification of the culprits when they are arrested during the course of investigation; and (c) recovery/discovery of incriminating articles i.e. the looted property or weapon used in the crime and other objects. In the present case, there is evidence of identification of the culprits and one of the accused was caught red-handed at the spot. The Governmental Enforcement Agency, during the course of investigation, has effected recovery of the looted property. The case of the accused appellant - Madan Mohan, is partially based on circumstantial evidence and partially on the identification as well as recovery of the looted property. 19. According to Ankesh (PW2), on 6th July, 2004, when he returned back from his college training while he parked his motorcycle and was entering his residence at the ground floor, he heard noise of many people climb down the stairs from the first floor. His father and he came out and saw three persons running out from the staircase and when he called them, they ran away fast from the place of incident. The 4th person, who was still climbing down the stairs, was caught hold of by them though he made an unsuccessful attempt to get off their clutches. In the meantime, another neighbour Vinod arrived at the scene. On an enquiry, the accused person caught, informed that co-accused Niranjan (domestic help) was a known person for they belong to the same village and he had come to meet him. He disclosed his name as Hari Kishan Rawat and also the names of other co-accused persons. 20. Brij Mohan (PW1) father of the Ankesh (PW2) went to the first floor instructing him and Vinod to keep hold of Hari Kishan Rawat, while Hari Kishan Rawat made an effort to make good his escape, and therefore, he was locked into the bathroom. 20. Brij Mohan (PW1) father of the Ankesh (PW2) went to the first floor instructing him and Vinod to keep hold of Hari Kishan Rawat, while Hari Kishan Rawat made an effort to make good his escape, and therefore, he was locked into the bathroom. In the meantime, Brij Mohan (PW1), informed Ankesh (PW2) and Vinod of the loot committed by the accused persons on the first floor. Pawan and Lalit Prasad Natani, residents of the first floor, were informed telephonically. 21. The police arrived at the scene of the crime, who took injured - Hemlata to hospital where she was declared dead. The co-accused - Hari Kishan Rawat was handed over to the police, from whose pocket a letter was recovered, which was written in 'udiya', regional language of Orissa. The letter also contained the name and address of Niranjan. Later on, co-accused Hari Kishan Rawat disclosed that the letter was posted to him by Niranjan. The letter recovered was exhibited as Ex.P2. 22. Ankesh (PW2), has also deposed in his statement that he identified the accused appellant - Madan Mohan in the identification parade (Ex.P4), and he was the same person, who escaped from the scene of the crime on the date of incident i.e. 6th July, 2004. Brij Mohan (PW1), has also deposed to the same effect. 23. Identification of Lalit Prasad Natani (PW4), is superfluous and is of no consequence. However, there is no element of any doubt that the accused appellant has been correctly identified by Ankesh (PW2), who is an eyewitness of the incident and caught the co-accused Hari Kishan Rawat, red-handed on the spot, while the accused appellant was successful to make good his escape. 24. The accused appellant, who was arrested from West Bengal, is a fact not disputed. His arrest has been shown at Jaipur at Shastri Nagar Police Station. The procedural irregularity, if viewed in the overall attendant facts and circumstances, is not of a magnitude so as to vitiate the trial and disbelieve the other overwhelming evidence available on record. 25. 24. The accused appellant, who was arrested from West Bengal, is a fact not disputed. His arrest has been shown at Jaipur at Shastri Nagar Police Station. The procedural irregularity, if viewed in the overall attendant facts and circumstances, is not of a magnitude so as to vitiate the trial and disbelieve the other overwhelming evidence available on record. 25. The argument raised with reference to recovery of the articles, which were detailed out in the list (Ex.P6) by the complainant being subject matter of the dacoity, having not been correctly identified; suffice it to say that humanly it is not possible to correctly and exactly remember the minute details of the articles, which are used at home in ordinary course of nature. The defence set up on behalf of the accused appellant has not been probabilised so as to dislodge the prosecution case wherein one of the co-accused was caught red-handed on the spot. 26. During the course of search of the person of the co-accused appellant - Hari Kishan Rawat, a search memo (Ex.P2), was drawn and a letter was recovered from the pocket of his shirt, which contained script in 'Udiya' language bearing date 8th June, 2004, and below the script, address of the house (place of incident), was written with name of Niranjan, which reads thus:- "Niranjan C/o Lalit Natani C-13-14 Sikar House, Chandpole, Jaipur" 27. Niranjan - co-accused (minor), was servant/domestic help of Lalit Prasad Natani, resident of first floor of the house where the alleged incident took place. Co-accused Niranjan (minor) wrote letter to the accused appellant informing him about the details of the members of the family of Lalit Prasad Natani and their daily routine. He also detailed out the financial status as well as about the jewellery in the house that was normally available. 28. Ms. Anjali Mahapatra (PW5) working at SOS Balgram, Jaipur, who is also resident of Kolar State of Orrisa, was called upon to translate the text of the letter (Ex.P19), which reflected the planning of the accused appellants to commit the crime. Ms. Anjali Mahapatra (PW5) deposed before the Trial Court that she knew reading and writing 'Udiya' language. 28. Ms. Anjali Mahapatra (PW5) working at SOS Balgram, Jaipur, who is also resident of Kolar State of Orrisa, was called upon to translate the text of the letter (Ex.P19), which reflected the planning of the accused appellants to commit the crime. Ms. Anjali Mahapatra (PW5) deposed before the Trial Court that she knew reading and writing 'Udiya' language. She further stated that upto 10th Standard the education is imparted in 'Udiya' language in the State of Orrisa and she too acquired the education in the State of Orrisa, though she has not undergone any specialised course in translation. The accused appellant - Hari Kishan Rawat denied to give his specimen handwriting. However, he admitted his writing at Ex.P18 as has been deposed before the Trial Court by Niranjan Kumar (PW15), who had gone to the Central Jail, Jaipur, and Children Home on 11th August, 2004, while working as Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The letter (Ex.P19), which was recovered from the bag belonging to Niranjan - minor co-accused, who was servant/domestic help, was written in 'Udiya' language was found to be written by one and the same person; as reflected from the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P49). The letter (Ex.P19), which was recovered from the bag of the minor co-accused - Niranjan, was written by the co-accused appellant Hari Kishan Rawat. 29. Niranjan - the co-accused (minor) was found lying on his chest with his hands tied on to his back and he got up when Brij Mohan (PW17), reached the first floor while his son Ankesh (PW2) and another neighbour Vinod caught hold of co-accused appellant Hari Kishan Rawat. Mouth of Niranjan was not tied and his legs were tree; which is a circumstances that speaks loud and clear of his involvement in the crime, beyond any reasonable doubt. The fact is also proved in view of the letters (Ex.P18 & P19), exchanged between the minor co-accused Niranjan and co-accused appellant (Hari Kishan Rawat). The letter (Ex.P18) recovered from co-accused appellant (Hari Kishan Rawat), gives a categorical description about how to reach from Jaipur Railway Station to Sikar House, what was the amount of cash available at the residence of the landlord (Lalit Prasad Natani), as well as the place where the ornaments/jewelery were kept. The letter (Ex.P18) recovered from co-accused appellant (Hari Kishan Rawat), gives a categorical description about how to reach from Jaipur Railway Station to Sikar House, what was the amount of cash available at the residence of the landlord (Lalit Prasad Natani), as well as the place where the ornaments/jewelery were kept. The letter has been recovered during the search of the person of Hari Kishan Rawat from the pocket of his shirt and hence, there is no room for any doubt or discrepancy. Thus, the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt of conspiracy as defined under Section 120-B of IPC. 30. The test identification parade was conducted in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate. He has specifically deposed in his evidence that required number of persons were mingled and the witness Ankesh (PW2) correctly identified the accused appellant within fifteen second. 31. It is a matter of common experience and human behaviour that rock-shed incident/accident of the nature one at hand wherein dacoity was committed and a lady was killed while committing the loot must have left an impact on the mind of the witness and those memories cannot easily obliterate. Therefore, the arguments that the witnesses could not have identified the accused appellant after a distant time of almost two years, cannot be accepted. 32. Minor discrepancies in evidence are condemnable having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and the witnesses. Some discrepancies are bound to take place, if witnesses are cross-examined at length for days together and after a lapse of substantial period between the incident and the day when the witness deposed before the Trial Court. Therefore, the Court has to keep in mind all the relevant attendant facts while appreciating the evidence of a witness. 33. In the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh: AIR 1988 SC 1998 ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:- "17. On late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini : 24 C.W.N. 626 PC , the Privy Council had this to say (at 628): That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue, since there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence. 18. In Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1954 SC 31 Mahajan, J. speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff. 19. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform." 34. There appears to be some substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State that insignificant, feeble and insubstantial reason must not be considered to throw out the testimony of the trustworthy evidence of eyewitnesses. In the instant case at hand, co-accused appellant (Hari Kishan Rawat) was caught red handed on the spot, soon after they had committed the loot and murder of Ms. Hemlata, while attempting to make good their escape. However, three of the co-accused were successful in making good their escape while co-accused-Niranjan (the juvenile delinquent) was also caught on the spot, a conspirator in the crime, well connected by the evidence (Ex.P18 & Ex.P19), the letters exchanged between co-accused appellants - Hari Kishan Rawat and Niranjan. 35. In the case of Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined in unequivocal terms that where the Police Officers are witnesses to a recovery, their evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are Police Officers. No adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of some witnesses for there would not be any requirement to produce same evidence in multiplicity. Viewed in the backdrop of cumulative effect of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, which found corroboration from the recoveries effected by the prosecution well proved during the course of trial; the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused appellants. 36. Therefore, for the reasons and discussions herein above, the appeals filed by the appellants fail and are hereby dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******