JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All the above-titled five appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order rendered on 2.8.2011, by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, hence have been heard together and are being adjudicated by this single verdict hereinbelow. 2. On 26.5.2006, learned Sessions Judge initially levelled the Charges against six accused persons for the offences of Section 302, 364, 120-B, 396, 201 and 412 IPC, but as the trial commenced, one of the accused, namely, Rajendra Singh @ Raju Rawat escaped from the jail custody and somehow, was killed during an encounter with the police on 24.6.2006, so the trial stood abated against him vide order dated 18.8.2006. The case pertains to Police Station, Tanakpur, District Champawat, bearing Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2005 (Crime No. 201 of 2005), wherein all the accused persons remained in caption eversince the date of their arrest and were not favourably considered to be released on bail till date. 3. For convenience, we would refer the accused Rohit Malik as ‘A1’, Daleep @ Dallu ‘A2’, Vimal ‘A3’, Yogesh Rautela ‘A4’, Rajendra Singh @ Raju Rawat (case abated as above) as ‘A5’ and Chandra Shekhar @ Shekhar Upreti as ‘A6’. They all are the youths running in their mid twenties and resident of nearby places of Champawat or Tanakpur. 4. Learned Sessions Judge found all the five accused persons, whom against trial proceeded, guilty for the charges levelled against them and has convicted all of them awarding sentences appropriate to each of them. 5. All the accused were found guilty for commission of triple murder along with dacoity, plundering a wealthy jeweller, namely, Munish Kumar Agarwal. Mr. Agarwal used to run his jewellery shop along with his brother Rajiv Kumar Agarwal (PW1) in the big city Bareilly which is not far away from the place of incident. He kept on visiting the hilly towns of Pithoragarh via Banbasa-Tanakpur-Champawat periodically in connection with his business transactions, and almost every time, he carried with him a large number of items made of gold, silver besides precious stones, to supply them to the local goldsmiths and, in turn, to collect cash from them. 6. On the fateful day of 10.5.2005, Mr. Agarwal along with his employee (accountant) Mr. Devesh Gangwar and driver Mr. 6. On the fateful day of 10.5.2005, Mr. Agarwal along with his employee (accountant) Mr. Devesh Gangwar and driver Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, left the Bareilly town in the morning and at around 9:30 AM, he was in Tanakapur city where he completed his business dealings with Mr. Bablu Verma (PW4) running his shop there in the name and style of ‘Surbhi Jewelleries’, and then further, after having a little refreshment in the nearby shop of PW2 Anil Kumar, left the town of Tanakpur at about 10 AM, to advance his journey towards Champawat. Just after about half an hour of such leaving, they all crossed ‘Kiroda Bridge’ in their ‘Qualis’ Vehicle bearing No. HR264-U-1691. On the steep turn, the vehicle was made to slow and meanwhile, A1 and A2, coming from front and getting information about every movement of victims, from co-accused A3 and A4 through their cell phones, slowly dashed their motorcycle at the side of such Qualis. With the result, accused and the victims, both stopped their respective vehicles and began to indulge in altercations, raising allegations of wrong driving against each other. In the meantime, A3 and A4, (chasing the victims since Banbasa-Tanakpur) also arrived there. A1 then took out the key of Qualis in his possession and looking to these gestures of accused persons, Mr. Agarwal started making noise. Then, A2, A3 and A4, in order to achieve their common object, exhorted A1 to open fire upon Mr. Agarwal, which A1 did from his 315 bore country-made pistol. The bullet hit the chest of Mr. Agarwal and all these accused persons, A1 to A4, overpowered the driver Kanhaiya Lal and accountant Mr. Devendra Gangwar, to carry the Toyota Qualis vehicle 10-15 kilometers away in the jungle. All the three victims were also administered the poisonous injection of Fortwin in order to make them unconscious. Thereafter, the locker beneath the seats of vehicle was broken open and the jewellery items, kept therein, were plundered by all the culprits A1 to A4 and concealed the same nearby beneath the stones and green leaves. 7. A2, while making disclosure statement, confessed that after taking the country-made pistol of A1, he shot dead the driver Kanhaiya Lal as well and they all ensured the death of accountant Mr. Devendra Gangwar by giving fatal blow of iron-wheel spanner. Thus, the accused persons made sure that all the three victims had died. 7. A2, while making disclosure statement, confessed that after taking the country-made pistol of A1, he shot dead the driver Kanhaiya Lal as well and they all ensured the death of accountant Mr. Devendra Gangwar by giving fatal blow of iron-wheel spanner. Thus, the accused persons made sure that all the three victims had died. The vehicle was then taken to another appropriate place, as has been shown in different Maps Ex.Ka-51 and Ka-55, for the purpose of disposing of the dead bodies. Body of Mr. Munish Agarwal was thrown as such while the dead bodies of remaining two victims were thrown into the nearby flowing Sharda Canal after being kept in two big bags. 8. Since Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal (PW1), the real brother of Mr. Munish Agarwal, could not get any telephonic information about the well-being of his brother up-till evening, hence expressing his anxiety, he asked his relative Mr. Sanjay Kumar, running his business in Haldwani town, in this regard. Finding no result, PW1, accordingly, in the evening of 10.5.2005, orally informed the Superintendent of Police, Champawat, about missing of his brother. When no further clue, as regards the whereabouts of victims could be traced, PW1 along with others started to make a massive hunt to find out his brother. But no success could be achieved, therefore, PW1 lodged the first information report (Ex.Ka-1) on 12.5.2005 at 6:30 PM at P.S. Tanakpur, the Chick report whereof is Ex.Ka-10. In the report, PW1 expressed his apprehension about kidnapping of his brother along with the jewellery items and the vehicle. So, he evoked the legal action in the matter at the end of police. 9. Police, accordingly, came into motion and somehow, got information that an un-claimed Qualis vehicle had been parked since the late evening of 10.5.2005 at the parking of Anand Vihar, Delhi, and thus, was standing there for last two days. So, the Police of Tanakpur reached Delhi and with the aid and assistance of nearby station, recovered such vehicle and brought the same to Tanakpur. The vehicle was subjected to expert's examination and from inside, the bloodstained sweater, cotton, napkin etc. were recovered along with few other items indicating clue of some serious untoward incident. The expert body also recovered some hair which too were taken into possession. 10. The vehicle was subjected to expert's examination and from inside, the bloodstained sweater, cotton, napkin etc. were recovered along with few other items indicating clue of some serious untoward incident. The expert body also recovered some hair which too were taken into possession. 10. In furtherance of investigation, police firstly could get hint about the complicity of A1, A2 and A3 in the incident, so they could be arrested on 15.5.2005 at 8:45 AM. On being confronted to different queries, they could not keep the entire incident hidden while making the confessional statements disclosing the role of A4, A5 and A6 as well in the occurrence. Accordingly, A4 was arrested on 19.5.2005 (Memos of Arrest Ka-58 and Ka-59 proved by PW17). A5 & A6 were also arrested as the investigation advanced. 11. The entire incident was born in the shape of a conspiracy hatched by all these culprits on 27.4.2005 in a hotel, being run in the name and style of ‘Jai Bhawani Hotel’ at Tanakpur, where A5 stayed along with one other companion on that day. PW6 Deepak Kumar, Manager of that hotel has certified the stay of A5 along with his companion in the hotel by way of producing the Guest Register, disclosing the name of this accused. 12. It is a matter of common understanding that in such small towns, the hotel manager or the person sitting at the reception, never meticulously cares as to who is coming or leaving the hotel after having met with a particular guest. But the hatching of this conspiracy has been admitted by all the accused while making the disclosure statements about the entire sequence of the incident as also concealing of jewellery items. That apart, they also got recovered such items at their own instance from different places. It was also disclosed by them that after plundering the victims, how the briefcase of precious items of stones was fetched by motorcycle borne A5 and A6 and later, at some convenient time, all the culprits distributed the looted items as per their respective shares. This all was done as pre-arranged plan. 13. A1, A2 and A3 got recovered six bags filled with silver items weighing more than 80.500 kilograms including some gold and precious items in the jungle, which they concealed behind the stones and green leaves. Memo of that recovery is Ex.Ka-42, which has been witnessed by Mr. This all was done as pre-arranged plan. 13. A1, A2 and A3 got recovered six bags filled with silver items weighing more than 80.500 kilograms including some gold and precious items in the jungle, which they concealed behind the stones and green leaves. Memo of that recovery is Ex.Ka-42, which has been witnessed by Mr. Gopesh Agarwal and Mr. Raju Shahi. Mr. Gopesh Agarwal, while being examined as PW10 by the prosecution, has ratified such recovery. Although, PW10 is the friend of deceased Munish Kumar Agarwal but he has testified his presence in Tanakpur for the reason that on the relevant day, he along with PW1 Rajiv Kumar Agarwal, had come in connection with the release of Qualis vehicle. 14. At the instance of A1, his bloodstained pant was recovered which was stained at the time when he shot dead Mr. Munish Kumar Agarwal and in order to overpower him, along with his two other employees boarded in the vehicle itself, and further in the whole exercise of taking the deceased persons to some other nearby canal and throwing them into the flowing stream of water. Memo of recovery of Pant is Ex.Ka-49. 15. At the instance of A2, an empty case of cartridge was recovered in the jungle, the memo whereof is Ex.Ka-48. 16. On the pointing out of A1, country-made pistol of 315 bore was recovered from the drawer of his bed; memo thereof is Ex.Ka-47. 17. At the instance of A4, recovery of as many as - 25 - items made of gold, silver as also precious stones, looted in the occurrence, were recovered. This memo is Ex.Ka-58 which bears the signature of Bhuwan Rautela (DW1, real brother of A4). 18. Likewise, at the instance of A6, vide Memo Ex.Ka-4, different items of gold were recovered from his own house on 4.8.2005 in presence of Rajiv Agarwal and Gopesh Kumar Agarwal. 19. All these golden, silver jewellery and precious stones were placed for identification before PW1 Sri. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal (real brother of Munish Kumar, deceased) carrying on the same business, and most of the items were correctly identified by him. Memos of such identification are Ex.Ka-5 to Ka-9. 20. Furthermore, the dead body of Devendra Gangwar was recovered from a bag, shackled from a corner obsticle in the canal, on 15.5.2005 at 6 PM. The body of Mr. Memos of such identification are Ex.Ka-5 to Ka-9. 20. Furthermore, the dead body of Devendra Gangwar was recovered from a bag, shackled from a corner obsticle in the canal, on 15.5.2005 at 6 PM. The body of Mr. Munish Kumar Agarwal could be recovered on 18.5.2005 near Pilibhit (another district) without having any pant on his legs. This recovery could be effected only after putting efforts by the divers at the intervention of the U.P. Government by closing the flowing canal. 21. Inquest report of deceased Devendra Gangwar is Ex.Ka-22 and that of Mr. Munish Kumar Agarwal is Ex.Ka-27. It would be in the fitness of things to disclose the injuries found in the post-mortem report on the dead bodies of these two persons. 22. Autopsy on the dead body of deceased Devendra Gangwar, aged about 30 years, was done on 16.5.2005 at 12 PM in Govt. Hospital, Khatima. The following injuries were found in the report (Ex.Ka-21):- “1. Lacerated wound 4.0 cm Rs. 1.0 cm Rs. bone deep over right side back of head. 2. Lacerated wound 3.0 cm Rs. 1.0 cm over left side back of head.” 23. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was ante-mortem head injury and the time of death was stated to be 5-6 days back, which matches with the date and time of incident. 24. Post-mortem report (Ex.Ka-19) conducted on the body of Munish Agarwal on 18.5.2005 at 10:50 PM, adverts the following ante-mortem injuries:- “1. Incised wound of 6 × 2 cm × bone deep with underlying frontal bone fracture on right side. 2. Incised wound of 8 × 2 cm on top and middle of skull on right side, underlying parietal bone fracture. 3. Incised wound of 3 × 1 cm × bone deep × left side of skull, 11 cm above right ear. 4. Incised wound of 5 × 1 cm × bone deep on back of skull, over upper end of neck. 5. Punctured wound of 8 mm × 8mm × cavity deep on lower thigh of sternum. Caused by firearm.” 25. In the internal examination, the brain was found lacerated and blood was present at multiple places. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was coma and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 26. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record as well. 27. Caused by firearm.” 25. In the internal examination, the brain was found lacerated and blood was present at multiple places. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was coma and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. 26. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record as well. 27. It is pertinent to mention here that although the accused persons have confessed in their respective statements about shooting Mr. Kanhaiya Lal (driver) and then throwing his body too in the flowing river, after packing it in a big bag along with two other deceased, but despite every effort, his dead body could not be recovered during the whole course of investigation, nonetheless, the recovery of other two bodies. Although, the learned Trial Judge has attributed the guilt upon all the accused persons for committing the triple-murder on the basis of confessional statements, supported by a number of corroborative pieces of evidence but still, we are not fully convinced about the murder of Mr. Kanhaiya Lal because it is difficult to understand that while the body of Mr. Munish Kumar Agarwal could be recovered on 18.5.2005 after closing of Sharda Canal and all throughout this scrupulous exercise by the team of Divers with the aid and assistance of other suitable persons, why the body of Mr. Kanhaiya Lal could not be recovered, even till date. Our apprehension is further strengthened by another cogent reason that as to how these culprits could get information about the departure of Qualis vehicle from Bareilly in the morning of the incident containing such precious and costly jewellery items. These circumstances indicate the possibility of involvement of Mr. Kanhaiya Lal himself in the entire unfortunate incident because he was the immediate next most important person other than Mr. Munish Kumar Agarwal to have the prior information about the journey plan of his employer. So, we are not inclined to accept the findings recorded by learned Trial Judge as regards the conclusion of murder of Mr. Kanhaiya Lal (Driver) by these accused/appellants. However, there is no hesitation in our mind that committing murder of remaining two victims by these accused/appellants along with plundering of looted precious jewellery items, is well proved on the basis of evidence available on record. Kanhaiya Lal (Driver) by these accused/appellants. However, there is no hesitation in our mind that committing murder of remaining two victims by these accused/appellants along with plundering of looted precious jewellery items, is well proved on the basis of evidence available on record. All the more, A2, A5 and A6 are the habitual criminals, which is apparent from their criminal background, being set forth hereinbelow:- Criminal History of A2 (Dalip Singh) 1. Case Crime No. 8 of 2004 U/s 379/411 IPC and 26 Forest Act, P.S. Tanakpur. 2. Case Crime No. 83 of 2005, U/s 332/353/427/355/186 IPC. Criminal History of A5 (Rajendra Singh @ Raju Rawat) [Although died in police encounter] 1. Case Crime No. 579 of 1999 U/s 396 IPC, Kotwali Haldwani (acquitted after trial). 2. Case Crime No. 169 of 1999 Under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC, P.S. Kaladhungi, Nainital (acquitted after trial) 3. Case Crime No. 171 of 1999 U/s 25 Arms Act, P.S. Kaladhungi, Nainital (acquitted after trial) 4. Case Crime No. Nil of 2002 U/s 394/364 IPC, Patwari Patti Pataliya, Nainital. 5. Case Crime No. 159 of 2003 U/s 323/504/506/364 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Lohaghat. 6. Case Crime No. 287 of 2005 U/s 2/3 of Gangster Act, P.S. Tanakpur. Criminal History of A6 (Shekhar Upreti) 1. Case Crime No. 579 of 1999 U/s 396 IPC, P.S. Haldwani (acquitted after trial). 2. Case Crime No. 169 of 1999 Under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC, P.S. Kaladhungi, Nainital (acquitted after trial) 3. Case Crime No. 172 of 1999 U/s 25 Arms Act, P.S. Kaladhungi, Nainital (acquitted after trial) 4. Case Crime No. Nil of 2002 U/s 394/364 IPC, Patwari Patti Pataliya, Nainital. 5. Case Crime No. 287 of 2005 U/s 2/3 of Gangster Act, P.S. Tanakpur. 28. Now, we would like to discuss the legal position attributing the guilt on all these appellants as regards the incident. 29. The entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and more particularly, about the recovery of huge gold/silver jewellery items as well as precious stones, usually sold by the jewellers. This recovery is on the disclosure as well as at the instance of all these culprits respectively, making the confessional statements, undoubtedly before the Police and Investigating Officer. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits that no confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. This recovery is on the disclosure as well as at the instance of all these culprits respectively, making the confessional statements, undoubtedly before the Police and Investigating Officer. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits that no confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. In other words, the confessional statement of accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence which cannot be brought on record by prosecution to obtain the conviction. Such legal position has been settled in a plethora of decisions propounded by the Apex Court a number of times. But at the same time, in a judgment rendered of-late by the Apex Court while adjudicating a bunch of appeals led by a case of ‘Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh’ (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 27, wherein it was held that:- “In the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, whatever information given by the accused in consequence of which a fact is discovered only would be admissible in the evidence, whether such information amounts to confession or not. The basic idea embedded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information.” 30. It was further held by the Apex Court in the selfsame judgment that: “In the present case, Accused Nos. 4 & 7 disclosed the names of their co-accused at whose instance various incriminating materials including pistols, cartridges, bullets, blood stained articles were recovered. Simply denying their role without proper explanation as to the knowledge about those incriminating material would justify the presumption drawn by the Courts below to the involvement of the accused in the crime. The confession given by the accused is not the basis for the courts below to convict the accused, but it is only a source of information to put the criminal law into motion. Hence, the accused cannot take shelter under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.” 31. The confession given by the accused is not the basis for the courts below to convict the accused, but it is only a source of information to put the criminal law into motion. Hence, the accused cannot take shelter under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.” 31. That apart, Section 114 of the Evidence Act contemplates that ‘the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case’. Pertaining to this presumption, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Mukund alias Kundu Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh”, (1997) 4 Supreme 359 , has held that ‘a court may legitimately draw a presumption not only of the fact that the person in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he committed the murder’. 32. In addition thereto, we would like to place reliance upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan’ 2011 (2) Crimes 33 (SC), which is almost similar to the present controversy. In that case, the Apex Court has observed that ‘human avarice has no limits nor does it know of any emotions. The present case is the sordid saga of the crime which emanated purely from human avarice’. The said case was also based upon the circumstantial evidence having no eyewitness where an aged couple was murdered in their own house and the accused persons plundered a huge haul of gold weighing as much as 1347 grams, which was more than a kilo of gold besides cash, and such looted items were recovered within few days of incident, wherefor no explanation was offered by the culprits regarding the possession of such stolen property. They did not claim such property as of their own. Such property was recovered on the information given by the accused persons u/s 27 of the Evidence Act along with the clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of incident. So, the Apex Court, by drawing the presumption u/s 114 of the Evidence Act, found that all the four accused persons, in that case, were hand in gloves and they had entered into the conspiracy to commit robbery at victims' house. So, the Apex Court, by drawing the presumption u/s 114 of the Evidence Act, found that all the four accused persons, in that case, were hand in gloves and they had entered into the conspiracy to commit robbery at victims' house. They had developed a common intention to commit that crime and had actually committed the crime of robbery and in that process, had committed murder of two innocent persons in a cold-blooded manner. It was further observed therein that ‘there can be no dispute that in such a case, money was the motive as accused persons did not come from a wealthy background and on the other hand, they could not justify the possession of ornaments found with them because they were unlikely to own the ornaments on account of their financial position. 33. In the similar manner, the financial position of the present appellants is also not that sound so as to justify the possession of all these gold and silver jewellery items as well as precious stones by them in their direct or constructive possession. The argument put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that such items were not found in their direct control, is not acceptable to us for the reason that such a culprit is not supposed to possess all such items in his pocket every-time, nor the heavy items of silver can be possessed immediately by the accused; but if the accused persons were having control over these items, then they shall be presumed to be in possession of such items. More so, after the incident, accused persons were not supposed to carry such heavy silver ornaments weighing as much as 80.500 kilograms to their respective homes or to sell the same in the market because culprits, in whom's nature crime is embedded, can well understand that carrying such heavy items for selling in the nearby market closely after commission of the incident, is also not safe. So, they do wait, as was done in the case in hand, but meanwhile, the police cracked the case and all the accused persons were arrested and at their disclosure nay at their instance, the heavy silver items, as indicated above, as also several gold items including the precious stones (distributed in their respective shares) were recovered from their own houses. 34. 34. Another circumstance leading to culpability of all these appellants is that the bloodstained pant of deceased Munish Kumar Agarwal was also recovered during the course of investigation and when such pant along with the sweater of Mr. Agarwal besides Napkin as well as other items, recovered from the Qualis vehicle, were sent for chemical examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to match the stains and group of blood from that of Pant of A1, then on all these items, human blood was found to be of ‘AB’ Group. In addition, the hair, recovered from the said vehicle, were also found to be matching, in the same Laboratory, with the hair of A1 taken by the police after his arrest. Such examination report dated 29.11.2005 is available on record running from page nos. 132 to 137, which is well admissible in evidence as per Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 35. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has taken us to the F.S.L. report to argue that the case of empty cartridge and the bullet recovered from the body of Mr. Munish Kumar Agarwal besides the country made pistol recovered at the instance of A1, were also sent for chemical examination but the Laboratory has not confirmed that the bullet as well as the case of empty cartridge was fired from the recovered pistol. We have gone through such report and feel that the same does not completely rule out the use of that empty cartridge by the recovered pistol; rather, it only reveals that a decisive conclusion could not be drawn for want of certain features on the recovered items and such an eventuality is not enough to exonerate all these appellants from the guilt. The possibility also cannot be denied that A1 might have misled the Investigating Officer by making recovery of another country-made pistol other than he used in the incident. Application of mind, in a cunning manner, on the part of A1, is not unusual. So, in absence of several other circumstances, as have been highlighted hereinabove, if appreciated in the correct perspective of law available on the subject, then we find it a fit case where the chain of the circumstances is complete, pointing out all the incriminating links attributing the guilt of dacoity as well as murder by these appellants only. 36. So, in absence of several other circumstances, as have been highlighted hereinabove, if appreciated in the correct perspective of law available on the subject, then we find it a fit case where the chain of the circumstances is complete, pointing out all the incriminating links attributing the guilt of dacoity as well as murder by these appellants only. 36. A6 has examined DW3 Kheema Upreti, his own mother and DW4 Sri. Soban Singh Mehta to negate the fact of recovery on 4.8.2005 (Ex.Ka-4), but their mutual inter-contradictory deposition regarding the visit of police in their house makes evidently clear that they both are liars and deposing to save their kin unjustly. 37. Further, in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., every appellant has simply denied their complicity in the occurrent. They have not specifically denied or offered any glosses as to how their signatures could be procured on different recovery memos. 38. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment except that we still have doubt about the murder of driver Kanhaiya Lal in the entire scenario, nonetheless, we confirm holding the guilt of murder of Munish Kumar Agarwal along with his accountant Devendra Gangwar as well as commission of dacoity by these appellants. We, thus, feel that it would not be conclusive to hold all these appellants guilty for the murder of driver Kanhaiya Lal. However, even if assuming that Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, the driver, may still be alive, but feel that the gravity of offence, wherefor the appellants have been found guilty and convicted, is not mitigated because after all, they have committed the murder of at least two innocent persons in a brutal manner along with the dacoity. 39. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, all the five appeals are devoid of any merit and are thus, dismissed accordingly. Accused/appellants shall serve out the sentence, so awarded to them. 40. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the court concerned for compliance.