JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. This jail appeal is preferred by convict appellant Shankar Lal against the judgment dated 14.2.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract) No. 1 Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 168/2005 convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused Shankar Lal for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section. 302 I.P.C. and to undergo 3 years' r.i. with a fine Rs. 500/- under Section 201 I.P.C. and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In nutshell, short facts of the case are that one Nirmal Kumar Jain S/o Manak Chand Bokariya lodged a report Exhibit 2 with Police Station, Dabok, laying that his younger brother Rakesh Kumar aged 27 years had gone without informing on 19.8.2002 at about 12.15 noon from his shop of Chandesra and he has lastly seen with Shankar Lal S/o Ganesh Lal on 19.8.2002. After that he and his family members searched for Rakesh Kumar but did not find any trace. So he had given a missing person report on 21.8.2002 with Thana Dabok, after that they tried level best to search Rakesh Kumar but he could not be traced. Shankar Lal, with whom, his brother Rakesh Kumar was lastly seen together was also inquired upon regarding Rakesh Kumar, who told that Rakesh Kumar had come to get back money and had left, they did not suspect, Shankar Lal, because he was aged and was not having animosity with them. Shankar Lal murdered Laxman Lal Nagla a resident of their village on 22.8.2005 and buried his body inside his "Baara", because of money transaction and a case was registered with Dabok Thana, his brother Rakesh Kumar was also owning Rs. 15,000/- from Shankar Lal land was also last seen with Shankar Lal, therefore, they have developed an ultimate doubt that Shankar Lal has murdered his brother Rakesh Kumar after kidnapping and deception. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused while relying upon the verdicts of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 110 , State of Punjab v. Sarup Singh, 1998 Cri.L.J. 3292 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kapil Deo & Anr., 1991 Cr.L.R. (SC) 795 and a verdict of this Court in Nathu v. State of Rajasthan, 1998-99 (Supp.) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 227 has contended that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. The alleged skeleton, which is said to have been recovered from the Baara, does not belong to the appellant-accused, Baara is open and accessible to all, human body contain 206 bones but the alleged recovery of skeleton is of shorten number of bones and alleged fracture of bones might have caused during exhumation process. Missing episode of Rakesh Kumar is alleged to be of 19.8.2002, whereas F.I.R. Exhibit 2 has been lodged on 25.8.2005 i.e. after a period of about 3 years, if Shankar Lal was seen along with deceased Rakesh Kumar lastly by Narayan Lal Ji Gopawat and if this fact was already in the knowledge of the complainant Nirmal Jain and family members of the deceased, then why the missing person report was not lodged with this contention as well, so it is improbable. Learned Counsel has further argued that the alleged body was not properly identified and recovery of alleged Chanddi Baniyan and Chappal is also doubtful, alleged recovery of gold chain, rings is also dubious. Learned Counsel has argued that the police has not investigated the matter properly because statement of wife of deceased has also not been taken, nor she has been produced in evidence to establish the identity of under garments of the deceased. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that the story of prosecution is forged because the recovery is prior to the arrest of the accused appellant and has further submitted that entire story of the prosecution is baseless and prosecution has not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has also adduced some witnesses. Trial Court has committed error in passing the conviction order and has further submitted that the appellant-accused be acquitted and appeal be allowed. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the convicting order. Appellant-accused was lastly seen with deceased Rakesh Kumar by Narayan Lal but because the appellant-accused was bit aged and his attitude did not tend doubt that he could have been so heinous and might have killed a young boy, who was not having any animosity or ill-will against the appellant but had rendered loan money to the accused. Appellant-accused was lastly seen with deceased Rakesh Kumar by Narayan Lal but because the appellant-accused was bit aged and his attitude did not tend doubt that he could have been so heinous and might have killed a young boy, who was not having any animosity or ill-will against the appellant but had rendered loan money to the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused-appellant is a cold blooded murderer, who also killed one another individual Laxmi Narayan, who too was owning money from the appellant and after inviting him to get back the money, he called him in his desolate "Barra" and after killing, buried his body beneath the earth in "Baara", the appellant was also seen lastly together with Laxmi Narayan, upon F.I.R. of the relatives of Laxmi Narayan, body of the deceased Laxmi Narayan was found buried and was subsequently dug out, only then the family members of the deceased Rakesh Kumar got a clue to get things motioned on the same line because deceased Rakesh Kumar was also owing money and he too was called by the appellant-accused to collect money back and this fact was admitted by the appellant-accused, since he said that deceased Rakesh Kumar had been to him to collect money and when dubious "Baara" was searched, then, buried body of deceased Rakesh Kumar was found there almost turned into a skeleton of the deceased were also there, which were well recognised by the family members of the deceased. The prosecution has adduced reliable evidence. The body of the deceased was found from a "Baara", exclusively possessed by the appellant, who himself informed about burying of body and helped exhumed body from buried land of "Baara". He has also argued that revenue authorities have testified the property of appellant was partitioned amongst family members and this "Baara" was exclusively in possession of the appellant-accused. Learned Public Prosecutor has also said that there was an ill will and malice in the mind of the appellant not to repay the money and to snatch belongings of the deceased, so acting upon this mens rea, he deceptively invited deceased Rakesh Kumar, who was seen as "last seen together" with the appellant-accused by "Narayan Gopawat", who is none else but a relative of the Accused Shankarlal and "Narayan" has also deposed this fact in his evidence. The ornaments of the deceased Rakesh Kumar one gold chain and two rings have also been recovered from exclusive possession and on instance of the appellant-accused and the link evidence is completely united without any frailty. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing and proving its case beyond doubt against the appellant-accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the appellant accused is a dreaded killer, who has not only murdered Rakesh Kumar but has also murdered Laxmi Narayan and in that matter, Trial Court has convicted him for life imprisonment and this Court has also dismissed his appeal by upholding the said conviction order. The case of the prosecution has thoroughly proved and there is no error in the impugned conviction and order of sentence. The appeal does not bear force and has submitted to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the impugned judgment. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 5. Exhibit one, retro-missing person report relates to misplacement of Rakesh Kumar aged 25 years on 19.8.2002 at about 12.10 P.M. from village Chandesara and this report was registered with Thana Dabok at Number 917 on 21.8.2002, it is important to mention that the description of the person misplaced contain that misplaced person was wearing shirt and pant and was wearing black foot wear (chappal). 6. Advocate Mr. Anish Bhurat has been appointed as amicus curiae in this to conduct this jail appeal and to represent the convict-appellant. It is relevant to quote that one more F.I.R. No. 183/2005 was also registered against the appellant-accused for murdering one Laxmi Narayin, whose body was so recovered from the same Baara and was exhumed from the Baara of the used this aspect has very well been accepted by the defence and a reference dealt in written arguments submitted earlier. 7. Evaluation of the prosecution evidence describes that PW-1 Nirmal mar-complainant, brother of the deceased Rakesh Kumar Jain has proved ibits F.I.R. No. 1, 2 and 3. Exhibit one is the missing person report, Exhibit 2, written F.I.R. submitted and Exhibit 3 is F.I.R. registered by thana police. 8. 7. Evaluation of the prosecution evidence describes that PW-1 Nirmal mar-complainant, brother of the deceased Rakesh Kumar Jain has proved ibits F.I.R. No. 1, 2 and 3. Exhibit one is the missing person report, Exhibit 2, written F.I.R. submitted and Exhibit 3 is F.I.R. registered by thana police. 8. PW-2 Narayan a seventy years old person is a prominent witness, who had en deceased Rakesh Kumar along with deceased Rakesh Kumar and this witness has said :- ^^vkt ls 3 lky igys dh ckr gSA eSa esjs dq,a ls ?kj dh rjQ 12&1-00 cts vk jgk FkkA jkds'k vkSj 'kadj nksuksa tk jgs Fks vkSj ge xkWao dh rjQ tk jgs FksA eSaus jkds'k ls iwNk Fkk fd ckiw lt i/kkj jgs gks jkds'k us eq>s dgk Fkk fd 'kadj ck0 ls FkksM+k dke gSA fQj 'kadj ck0 vkSj jkds'k lkFk&lkFk x;s Fks vkSj ge xkao dh rjQ pys x;s FksA 'kke dks gkdk gqvk Fkk fd jkds'k dgka x;k dgka x;k gSA blds vykok eSa dqN ugha lquk FkkA xokg us gkftj vnkyr 'kadj yky dks ns[kdj crk;k fd ;gh ml fnu jkds'k ds lkFk FkkA mlds ckn jkds'k esjs ls ugha feyk FkkA^^ and in his cross-examination, he has admitted that accused "Shankar Lal" is relative and he has also said that he is having good relations with family of Rakesh Kumar because that family belongs to the same village. He has also said at Rakesh met me near Rakhi. Shankar Lal and Rakesh were coming from the side of village and they had met me near the "water-Naala", Rakesh Kumar and Shankar Lal were together. He has also said that Devra is situated near the Baara Shankar. He has also said that I don't remember as to what type of clothes re worn by Rakesh and has denied observing, wearing of any ring of gold in by deceased. Testimony of this witness does appear to be natural, had ere been any distortion, description relating to clothes or of gold ornaments, would have certainly been uttered by this witness. 9. Testimony of this witness does appear to be natural, had ere been any distortion, description relating to clothes or of gold ornaments, would have certainly been uttered by this witness. 9. PW-9 Ganesh Lal, a Patwari has specifically said that Shankar Lal's baara is situated in Araji No. 615 and has said :- ^^ml jkst iqfyl Fkkuk Mcksd ls ,0,l0vkbZ0 vk;s FksA mUgksaus vkjkth la0 615 kadj yky dk ckMk fLFkr Fkk ftldh [kkrsnkjh dh tekcUnh dh udy izn'kZ ih0 18] uD'kk V~sl izn'kZ ih0 10 ekaxk Fkk tks eSaus mudks fn;k FkkA [kljk la0 615 lh ls Mh LFkku ij izn'kZ ih0 18 esa vafdr ,oa uD'kk Vs~l esa [kljk la0 615 lh ls Mh LFkku ij vafdr gSA izn'kZ ih0 18&l izn'kZ ih0 19 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA eq>s ,d rgjhjh nh xbZ Fkh ftlesa [kljk la0 615 dk ekSdk ns[kk x;k FkkA ftldh ekSdk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 20 gSaA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA lh ls Mh ekSdk fjiksVZ dh dk;Zokgh esjh dyeh gSA 'kadj yky ds fjgk;'kh edku ds lEcU/k esa fjdkMZ esjs ls iwN x;k Fkk ftldh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 21 gSaA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA lh ls Mh esjs }kjk fy[kh x;h fjiksVZ gSaA esjh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj tekcUnh ckM+k 'kadj yky dk gh gSaA^^ Nothing abnormal has come from the cross-examination of this witness. 10. PW-13 Laxmi Lal S/o Ganesh Lal, who is none else but the brother of the appellant-accused has said that they are four brothers. Elder Shankar Lal, then Chhagan Lal then late Banshi Lal and myself the youngest. Partition has already taken place amongst us and it has been reduced into writing. He has also said that there are four parts in Chandesara Baara and "Bantawara Deed" is exhibit 46. Shankar LaL's "Baara" comes in East West. He has also said that Shankar lal has constructed small rooms of stone there. He has also mentioned and important thing that Shankar LaL's "Baara" is situated near "Naala" and it is worthy to discuss here that PW-2 Narayan Lal and witnessed Rakesh Kumar, the deceased, "lastly" with Shankar Lal near Naala. So, the exclusive possession of the said Baara is established to be of appellant-accused. 11. He has also mentioned and important thing that Shankar LaL's "Baara" is situated near "Naala" and it is worthy to discuss here that PW-2 Narayan Lal and witnessed Rakesh Kumar, the deceased, "lastly" with Shankar Lal near Naala. So, the exclusive possession of the said Baara is established to be of appellant-accused. 11. PW-1 Nirmal Kumar has narrated ocular say regarding exhumation of the body from the Baara of the accused appellant and has said that :- ^^ukjk;.k yky th us esjs HkkbZ dks iwNk Fkk fd jkds'k rq vkt b/kj fd/kj tk jgk rks esjs HkkbZ jkds'k us ukjk;.k yky th ls cksyk Fkk fd eSa 'kadj yky th ls mxkgh ds fy, tk jgk gwWa bl 'kadk ds vk/kkj ij eSaus ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ djok nh Fkh fQj dk;Zokgh gqbZ FkhA 'kadj yky ls esjh dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZ FkhA ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ djok;h Fkh og izn'kZ ih0 2 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA pSd ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 izn'kZ ih0 3 gSaA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA y{ehyky dk eMZj tgka ij gqvk Fkk ogka ij iqfyl okys 'kadj dks tkIrk lfgr ysdj vk;s FksA ogka vkdj 'kadj yky jkds'k dks eSaus ;gka ij xk<+ j[kk gSaA ftldk uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih0 4 rS;kj fd;k FkkA ftl , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA ftldh fofM;ksa 'kqfVax vkSj QksVksxzkQh dh FkhA ckM+s ds vUnj rhljs uEcj dk dejk FkkA dejs ds xsV ds lkeus okyh lkbM esa jkds'k dks nQuk j[kk FkkA igys 'kadj yky us vius gkFk ls [kksnk FkkA [kksnus ds ckn ,d&MsM fQV uhps gh dadky fudyk FkkA blus cksyk Fkk fd ;g jkds'k dk dadky gSaA dadky ds lkFk pM~Mh cfu;ku pIiy Hkh fudys FksA ftudks iqfyl us dCts iqfyl fy;k Fkk ftudh QnZ izn'kZ ih0 5 rS;kj dh FkhA og QnZ cfu;ku o pM~Mh dh gSa ftudks tIr dj lhyphV fd;k FkkA izn'kZ ih0 5 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA pIiy dks tCr dj QnZ izn'kZ ih0 6 rS;kj dh Fkh ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA ftudks Hkh lhyphV fd;k FkkA dadky fudyk Fkk mldks Hkh tCr fd;k FkkA ftldh QnZ izn'kZ ih0 7 rS;kj fd Fkh eqyfte dks eSa tkurk gwWaA gkftj vnkyr eqyfte 'kadj yky us gh [kM~Mk [kksndj dadky fudkyk FkkA esjs HkkbZ ds pIiy igpku fy;s Fks vkSj v.Mj fo;j dh csYV ls eSaus igpku fy;k Fkk fd ;g esjs HkkbZ dk dadky gS ;s lkeku Hkh dadky ds lkFk gh fudyk FkkA og dadky vafre laLdkj gsrq gkWLihVy ls gesa lqiqnZ fd;k Fkk ,d gM~Mh iqfyl okyksa us tkap ds fy;s j[kh FkhA QnZ lqiqnZxh dadky izn'kZ ih0 8 gSaA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA oYyHkuxj rglhy esa Hkh ge x;s Fks ogka ij psu vkSj vaxwBh dh f'kuk[rxh esjs ls djok;h FkhA og pSu vkSj nks vaxwfB;ksa dh f'kuk[rxh esjs ls djok;h FkhA ftldh QnZ izn'kZ ih0 2 rS;kj dh FkhA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA esjs HkkbZ jkds'k dk QksVksa izn'kZ ih0 10 gSaA tks xokg us ns[kdj dgk fd ;g esjs HkkbZ dk QksVks gSaA pIiy] pM~Mh cfu;ku vkSj lksus dh nks vaxwBh vkSj pSu dks eSa igpku ldrk gwWaA^^ He has also said that there was a gents underwear on the skeleton and has also said that Tehsildar has laid 5 to 7 rings and 5 to 7 chains of different kind at the time of identity, he has said that he identified underwear of the deceased by belt on which "Sunder" name of the company was written and Shankar Lalwa brought inside "Baara" by police after murder of Laxmi Lal. 12. PW-3 Manak Lal, father of the deceased has said that on 19.8.2002, "I was on my farm, then was apprised regarding misplacement of Rakesh Kumar. Narayan Lal had met me and on my enquiry, he had told that Rakesh and Shankar were going together towards "Baara" and Shankar Lal had said to his son Jagdish that Rakesh Kumar had come to him to get back the money and had left. He has also said that identification of gold chain and rings of my son Rakesh Kumar was conducted by Tehsildar and I had identified chain and two rings and their description is on Exhibit 9. He has also said that Rakesh Kumar used to wear of three strips of black colour. He has also said that: ";g dguk xyr gS fd y{ehyky dk [kwu gksus ds ckn Fkkus okyksa us gesa cqyokdj ;g ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fy[kkbZ gks cfYd ge [kqn ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fy[kkus Fkkus ij x;s FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd jkds'k tYn ls xk;c gqvk Fkk rc ls yxkdj vkt rd ukjk;.k ykyth dgha ckgj ugha x;s Fks xkWao esa gh jg jgs FksA xkWao ds yksx bdV~Bk gks x;s Fks rc 'kke dks ukjk;.k yky us eq>s dgk Fkk fd jkds'k vkSj 'kadj ck0 dks eSaus tkrs gq, ns[kk Fkk tc eSa [ksr ls vk jgk FkkA jkds'k dk dadky ckM+s esa cjken gqvk FkkA rc eSa ckM+s esa ekStwn FkkA dadky ij pM~Mh dh fdukj jg x;h Fkh vkSj cfu;ku dh Hkh ckagks ds ;gka ls fdukj dadky ij jg x;h FkhA flj ij dsl fcYdqy lkcr FksA pIiy dh tksM+h mldh [kM~Ms esa ls fudyh FkhA pIiy tksM+h esjh nqdku dh Fkh tks 10 uEcj dh pIiy tksM+h FkhA lksus dh vaxwBh psu iqjkuh FkhA fMtkbu nkj Fkh mlh fMtkbunkj ls eSaus igpkuh FkhA fdrus dsjsV lksus dh Fkh eq>s irk ugha gS eSaus mlds dsjsV ugha fudkys FksA fdl lksukj ds ;gka ls ;g pSu vkSj vaxwfB;ka cuok;h Fkh eq>s /;ku ugha gSA vaxwBh ij ePNh dk fu'kku vkSj lkf[k;s dk fu'kku gS mlds vk/kkj ij eSaus igpkuh FkhA^^ And there is no contradiction in the cross-examination of this witness. 13. 13. PW-6 Shankar Lal Paliwal has said that :- ^^iqfyl us pansljk esa esjs lkeus 'kadj yky ds edku esa ls ,d lksus dh psu] nks vaxwfB;ka lksus dh 'kadj yky ls cjken dh FkhA ftldh QnZ cuk;h tks izn'kZ ih0 16 gSaA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA cjken dj pSu vkSj vaxwfB;ksa rksy dj ,d lQsn diM+s dh FkSyh esa pSu vkSj vaxwfV;ka Mkydj lhy phV dh FkhA QnZ cjkenxh LFky izn'kZ ih0 17 gSaA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA pSu vkSj vaxwfB;ksa dks eSa igpku ldrk gwWaA^^ And this witness has identified the ornaments on production as articles and has said that I, was coming from Nauwa when police asked me to be a witness and the lock was opened by Shankar Lal after taking key from Varandah hanger. PW-7 Shanti Lal has said that :- ^^iqfyl ekSds ij vkbZ o dk;Zokgh dh Fkh] iqfyl us uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ ih0 4 cuk;k ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs nLr[kr gSA iqfyl eqyfte 'kadj dks nl lk<+s nl cts ysdj vkbZ FkhA 'kadj ds ckM+s esa x, Fks] ckM+s esa cus rhljs ua0 ds dejs esa jkds'k dk dadky fudyok;k] ogka gfM~M;ka oxSjk yh ftldh QnZ cukbZ tks izn'kZ ih0 7 gS] ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs nLr[kr gSA iqfyl us pM~Mh o cfu;ku tIr dj QnZ cukbZ tks izn'kZ ih0 5 gS ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs nLr[kr gSA ekSds ls pIiy yh ftldh QnZ izn'kZ ih0 6 gS] ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs nLr[kr gSA tCr'kqnk eky dks isdj dj lhyfpV fd;k FkkA^^ This witness has also said that there were Chapal of black colour of Bairathi Company. 14. PW-18 Shankar Lal Malviya is a Tehsildar, who has conducted identification of articles and has narrated the entire sequence testifying and identifying the articles. Nothing abnormal has come from his evidence in cross-examination. 15. PW-10 Mohan Singh is Malkhana incharge and has specifically said regarding deposit of articles and delivery of same of examination and entries thereof. PW-11 Mangi Lal is a Police Constable obtaining photographs and videography and has narrated Exhibit P-24 to P-41 and negatives being Ex. 24A to 41 and its videography being article 6. 15. PW-10 Mohan Singh is Malkhana incharge and has specifically said regarding deposit of articles and delivery of same of examination and entries thereof. PW-11 Mangi Lal is a Police Constable obtaining photographs and videography and has narrated Exhibit P-24 to P-41 and negatives being Ex. 24A to 41 and its videography being article 6. PW-12 Kuldeep Singh is also a police constable who has deposed regarding deposit of samples with the Medical Jurists F.S.L. and has testified and proved Exhibits 42,43, 44, 45 and 46 and its 7 articles. PW-14 Subodh Kumar is Police Constable of Police Station Dabok, who has proved Exhibit P-l and Rojnamacha Exh.P-47. PW-12 Kuldeep Singh is also a police constable who has deposed regarding deposit of samples with the Medical Jurists F.S.L. and has testified and proved Exhibits 42,43, 44, 45 and 46 and its 7 articles. PW-14 Subodh Kumar is Police Constable of Police Station Dabok, who has proved Exhibit P-l and Rojnamacha Exh.P-47. PW-16 Himmat Singh has narrated the entire sequence of investigation and has also said that: ^^vfHk;qDr 'kadjyky dks tfj, QnZ izn'kZ ih0 48 fxj~rkj fd;k ftl ij , ls ch esjs o lh ls Mh vfHk;qDr 'kadjyky ds gLrk{kj gSA vfHk;qDr us tSj fgjkLkr lwpuk nh tks izn'kZ ih0 49 gS] ftl ij , ls ch esjs o lh ls Mh vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj gSA bl lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij e`rd ds dCts okys ckM+s esa fLFkr ,d dejs ls uj dadky cjken fd;k tks izn'kZ ih0 7 gS] ftl ij b ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj o th ls ,p vfHk;qDr 'kadjyky ds gLrk{kj gS] mDr dadky dh gfM~M;k fpfdRlk cksMZ us ijh{k.k gsrq ,d FkSyh esa iSd dj lqiqnZ fd;k Fkk] iSdsV ij ekdZ lh vafdr gksdj ,e0vks0 dh Mh0Mh0,l0 dh lhy yxh gqbZ FkhA iksLVekVZe ds i'pkr~ izn'kZ ih0 8 ds tfj;s ekuo dadky vafre fdz;kdeZ gsrq fueZy dqekj dks lqiqnZ fd;k Fkk] ftl ij b ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS] 'kadj yky dh fu'kknsgh ls cjken dadky ds mij ls ,d cfu;ku o ,d pM~Mh tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih0 5 crkSj otg lcwr tIr dh Fkh] mDr cfu;ku o pM~Mh dks ?kVuk LFky ij gh izkFkhZ fueZy dqekj us vius HkkbZ jkds'k dk gksuk f'kuk[kr fd;k FkkA izn'kZ ih0 5 ij b ls ,Q esjs o th ls ,p vfHk;qDr 'kadjyky ds gLrk{kj o ,Dl LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr gSA 'kadjyky dh lwpuk ls cjken dadky ds ikl ls feyh pIiy tksM+h dks tfj, QnZ izn'kZ ih0 6 crkSj otg lcwr tIr fd;k mDr pIiyksa dks Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk mlds HkkbZ jkds'k dk gksuk ekSds ij gh f'kuk[r fd;k Fkk] bl ij b ls ,Q esjs o th ls ,p vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj o ,Dl LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr gSA izn'kZ ih0 5 ls ih0 7 esa tIr 'kqnk vkfVZdy dk uD'kk utjh tfj,s] QnZ izn'kZ ih0 4 cuk;k ftl ij b ls ,Q esjs o th ls ,p vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj gSA vUos"k.k ds nkSjku vfHk;qDr 'kadjyky us ,d lwpuk izn'kZ ih0 50 fy[kk;h ftlds vk/kkj ij tfj, QnZ izn'kZ ih0 16 ls lksus dh ,d pSu o lksus dh nks vaxwfB;ka vfHk;qDr 'kadj ds fjgk;'kh edku esa cus dejs ls cjken dh ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs b ls ,Q vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj gksdj ,Dl LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr gS] mDr cjkenxh dk uD'kk utjh tfj, QnZ izn'kZ ih0 17 eqrhZc fd;k ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs ,oa b ls ,Q ekSrchj jkeukjk;.k ds gLrk{kj gSA izn'kZ ih0 18 iVokjh gYdk ls izkIr fd;k ftl ij lh ls Mh esjk i`"Bkadu o b ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gSA uD'kk V~sl izn'kZ ih0 19 ij lh ls Mh i`"Bkadu o b ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gSA iVokjh gYdk ls ckM+s ds ekfydkuk gd ckcr fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 20 izkIr dh ftl ij b ls ,Q i`"Bkadu o th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih0 21 vfHk;qDr ds fjgk;'kh edku dk fjdkMZ izkIr fd;k ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjk i`"Bkadu o th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSA xzke iapk;r pansljk ls vfHk;qDr 'kadjyky ds fjgk;'kh edku dk fjdkWMZ tfj, QnZ izn'kZ ih0 51 izkIr fd;k ftl ij , ls ch esjs lh ls Mh i`"Bkadu o b ls ,Q ljiap ckyqjke ds gLrk{kj gSA izn'kZ ih0 4 }kjk 'kadjyky dh fu'kknsgh ls cjken dadM dh ?kVuk LFky dk uD'kk ekSdk cuk;k x;k ftl ij b ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS] o th ls ,p vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj gSA izn'kZ ih0 11 ij th ls ,p0 i`"Bkadu gksdj vkbZ ls ts esjs gLrk{kj gSA eky[kkuk jftLV~j dh udy izn'kZ ih0 22 gS] tks QksVks izfr gS] ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSA vfHk;qDr 'kadjyky }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ,oa ml vk/kkj ij gq, dadky dh cjkenxh }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ,oa ml vk/kkj ij gq, dadky dh cjkenxh ds ?kVuk LFky ds QksVksxzkQ~l ,oa fofM;ksxzkQh djkbZ xbZ] QksVks izn'kZ ih0 24 ls ih0 41 gSA" There is no breakage of link evidence and the entire evidence has unfurled sequence of events without any frailty, whatsoever. 16. It is worthy to observe that the accused-appellant was arrested and detained in another murder case of victim "Laxmi Narayan", who was killed by; him to avoid repayment of money and the deceased was buried after murder, on recovery and disclosure of that case Shankarlal was suspected by family members of Rakesh Kumar and as such querried accused made revelation and on the instance of the appellant-accused "dead" burial of Rakesh Kumar was also informed and during this process, body of deceased Rakesh Kumar, who too owned money from the appellant-accused, was found and F.I.R. coupled with information was effected thereto and upon F.I.R. No. 182/2005, P.S. Dabok a Sessions Trial No. 3/2007 was conducted and Shankar Lal was convicted on 26.6.2007 for the murder of Laxmi Narayan and its Appeal No. 599/2007 was also dismissed by this Court on 9.1.2015. 17. All the medical experts before whom the body was exhumed, autopsy and examination on the skeleton was done, have said that there was "ante mortem" injuries on the vital parts of the skull, which resulted into death of the victim deceased. PW-4 Dr. Anish Ahmed has said that fractures were there on the right and left temporal bone upto foremen Megnam. He has also said that fracture of skull and mandible was "ante mortem", caused by blunt object and cause of death was head injury. Likewise Dr. Rajesh (PW-5) has narrated the same thing and has said that rib was also found fractured and these material medical experts proved Exhibits 11, 12, 13 and 14, nothing abnormal has come out of the cross-examination and in the end of the cross-examination, Dr. Anish has also said that police officer Himmat Singh informed them that skeleton belong to Rakesh S/o Manka Chand and has also said that fracture injuries of Exhibit 11 present on the skeleton were retro to death and such fractures cannot occur during digging. The probable age of the deceased body has also stated to be between 18 to 30 years having estimated height of 5' 2" to 5' 7" and this has been narrated on the basis of measurement and observations made. 18. The probable age of the deceased body has also stated to be between 18 to 30 years having estimated height of 5' 2" to 5' 7" and this has been narrated on the basis of measurement and observations made. 18. In State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash & Anr., 2016 Cri.L.J. 1604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, while upholding conviction that - "Disclosure made by accused leading to recovery of personal belongings of deceased and blood-stained clothes of accused-No explanation given by accused as regards recoveries made" and has as such relied upon testimony of witnesses as coherent. 19. Examination of the afore-referred evidence, uncontrovertedly establishes that deceased Rakesh Kumar, who got misplaced was "lastly seen" along with appellant-accused Shankar Lal and reliable evidence has been given by Narayan Lal that he had seen deceased Rakesh Kumar going along with accused Shankar Lal near Naala. Said Baara was exclusively owned and possessed by the appellant-accused from where the body was recovered on indication and information of Shankarlal, the under garments chadhi and baniyaan and chappal (foot-wear) of deceased were duly identified by all the witnesses and entire evidence shows that on the information and instance of the appellant-accused. He also pointed out and helped in getting the body exhumed from "Baara", black chappal, which is mentioned in exhibit one, MPR has got matching and "Baara" was also exclusively in possession of the appellant-accused, this has also been proved by revenue authorities, even brother of the appellant has narrated alike. 20. The belongings of the deceased victim Rakesh Kumar comprises of one gold chain and two gold rings have also been recovered on the instance of the appellant-accused from his possession. The medical evidence has also corroborated the entire story and Dr. Anish has candidly said that injuries on the vital part of the skull were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death. In all, the incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution from a complete chain of events which do not allow any confusion with regard to the involvement of appellant Accused Shankarlal in this ghastly crime. Temptation to avoid payment of borrowings and to grab belongings of deceased by latent extinction and further his burial in own Baara despite posing to be a family member by sharing quest to mislead, is abhorrent. Temptation to avoid payment of borrowings and to grab belongings of deceased by latent extinction and further his burial in own Baara despite posing to be a family member by sharing quest to mislead, is abhorrent. The prosecution has proved its case with full corroboration beyond reasonable doubt, and it is obvious that learned Trial Court has not committed any error, while deciding the same, so this Court has got no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Consequently this appeal is bereft of merit, therefore, is dismissed.