JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. 1. These appeals arises out of the judgment dated 28.11.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Hanumangarh, Nohar (for short, “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 56/2007, by which the learned trial court has convicted both the accused-appellants (1) Sukhveer @ Kulli and (2) Dholia @ Umariya @ Umrao @ Mander for the offence under Sections 460, 302/34, 458/34, 450/34, 394/34 and 397/34 IPC. Convict Sukhveer has lodged his appeal No. 930/2008 from jail as a jail appeal and another accused Dholia alias Umrao has subsequently preferred appeal No. 77/2009, both the appeals have ordered to be connected vide order dated 25.2.2009 since, both these appeals have arisen from a solo judgment passed by the learned trial court, therefore, both are being decided by this single judgment. 2. 2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Rakesh Kumar (PW-3) got an FIR lodged with police station, Rawatsar, stating that:- ^^vkt fnukad 5-9-05 ds oDr 9 ,,e ij Jh jkds'k iq= cuokjhyky tkfr tkV mez 21 lky fuoklh <<syk ih,l jkorlj gky fuokl e0ua0 6@20 dSuky dkyksuh] jkorlj us gkftj Fkkuk gksdj ,d fyf[kr fjiksVZ onh etequA lsok eas Jheku~ Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk jkorlj fo"k;% flapkbZ dSuky dkyksuh jkorlj ¼okMZ ua0 18½ DokVj uEcj 6@20 esa ekjihV o dkfrykuk geyk o pksjh dh fu;r ls djus ckcrA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k; esa uez fuosnu gS fd dSuky dkyksuh jkorlj ds DokVj ljdkjh la- 6@20 esa Jh cuokjhyky pkSdhnkj vius ifjokj lfgr fuokl djrs gSA vkt fnukad 5-9-05 dks lqcg 3-30 o 4-00 ds chp esa tc Jh cuokjh yky vius DokVj ds ckgj lks jgk Fkk rks vKkr pksjksa us mu ij lks;s ij dkfrykuk geyk fd;k vkSj muds flj esa xgjh pksV vkbZ ftlds dkj.k oks ekSds ij gh rRdky csgks'k gks x;sA bl ?kVuk ds ckn vKkr pksj edku dh nhokj Qkan dj edku ds vUnj ?kql x;s tgka muds nksuksa yM+ds o cM+h iq=o/kq vyx&2 dejksa esa lks;s gq, Fks vKkr pksjksa us cM+h iq=o/kq ds dkuksa ls ckfy;k rksM+ yh o muds flj ls pksV ekjh muds fpykus ij NksVk yM+dk mBdj ckgj vk;k o vKkr pksjksa ls eqdkcyk djus yxk tks fd la[;k esa rhu&pkj FksA eqdkcys esa NksVs yM+ds Jh jkds'k dqekj iq+= Jh cuokjh yky ds dkQh pksVs vkbZ vkSj Jh cuokjh th ds ifjokj dks ?kk;y dj vKkr pksj Qjkj gks x;sA mlds Jh cuokjhyky pkSdhnkj o mudh cM+h iq=o/kq o Jh jkds'k dqekj dks rqjar jktdh; fpfdRlky;] jkorlj esa bykt ds fy;s HkrhZ djk;k x;k ftlesa Jh cuokjhyky ds vf/kd o xEHkhj pksVs vkus ds dkj.k mUgsa fpfdRlk izHkkjh }kjk vfoyEc chdkusj ds fy;s jsQj dj fn;k o Jh jkds'k dqekj o mudh iq=o/kq fpfdRlky;] jkorlj esa bykt ds fy;s HkrhZ gSA vr% Jhekuth ls fuosnu gS fd vKkr pksjksa dks vfoyEc fxjrkj djus dh dk;Zokgh djs vkSj vHkh&vHkh geas lekpkj feyk gS fd Jh cuokjhyky th dks chdkusj ys tkrs le; muds jkLrs esa gh egktu ds ikl e`R;q gks xbZ gS d`i;k dk;Zokgh djsA ^^izkFkhZx.k ,lMh jkds'k dqekj iq+= Jh cuokjhyky pksdhnkj^^ is'k dh ftldh udy 'kCn c 'kCn dh tkdj i<+dj lqukbZ lqu le> lgh gksuk eku vius gLrk{kj fd;sA ifjoknh dh pksVs ns[kh xbZ rks cka;s gkFk dh dksguh ij pksV yxdj [kwu vk;k gqvk gS nkfgus gkFk ds igqapk ds ikl pksV o lkstu vkbZ gqbZ gSA exjksa esa nnZ tkfgj djrk gSA etequ fjiksVZ o ns[kus tjykr ls tqeZ /kkjk 302] 460] 458] 380] 34 vkbZihlh dk ?kfVr gksuk ik;k tkus ij eq0ua0 219@05 tqeZ mijksDr esa ntZ dj rQrh'k 'kq: gqbZA^^ 3. One other accused Jagdish, who escaped prior to framing of the charges from sub jail, Nohar, was declared absconded vide order dated 23.4.2007 by the trial court and rest of the two accused Sukhveer @ Kulli and Dholia @ Umariya were charge sheeted under Sections 460, 302, 302/34 and 458 and in alternative 458/34, 450 and in alternate 450/34, 394, 397/34, 394 read with Section 398 read with Section 134 and under Section 494 I.P.C. charges were denied, so the accused were put to trial, the prosecution produced twenty one witnesses and seventy nine documents, the defence got exhibited D/1 and D/2 “Pracha Bayan” of Shakuntala and Rakesh and after hearing both the sides, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment by which Sukhveer and Dholia both were convicted as under:- U/Sec. 460 I.P.C. –– Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine and to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. U/Sec. 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. –– Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. U/Sec. 458/34 I.P.C. –– Ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment. U/Sec. 394 read with Section 397/34 I.P.C. –– Ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.8,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Since, the third accused Jagdish remained absconded, so an observation was made by the trial court to keep the record intact and secure at the time of verdict. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused and examined material available on the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is no evidence with respect to infliction of injury on the deceased as to who caused it and how he died, but the learned trial Court has ignored this aspect and has convicted all the accused persons. There is significant contradiction on the number of the accused involved. The challan was filed against two persons, whereas the complainant has himself subsequently asserted that the accused involved were more than that. There is significant contradiction on the number of the accused involved. The challan was filed against two persons, whereas the complainant has himself subsequently asserted that the accused involved were more than that. The prosecution evidence is not satisfactory and it has not proved the alleged offence beyond the confines of reasonable doubtfulness, serious suspicion is there upon the identity of the accused persons, but ignoring all these vitals, learned trial Court has passed the impugned order of conviction, which is not worthy to sustain, hence the appellants be acquitted after allowing the instant appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant Dholia has contended that he reiterates and repeats all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the co-accused appellant Sukhveer @ Kulli, besides it has also been argued by the learned counsel that there cannot be conviction under Sections 460 and 302 altogether and sentence could be under either of the Section. It has also been argued that the trial Court has convicted and passed order of life imprisonment to continue till survival, which is also very harsh and has further submitted to acquit the appellant after setting aside the impugned judgment awarding conviction and sentence. 6. Scrutiny and appraisal of the evidence as adduced by the prosecution reveals that PW-3 Rakesh Kumar complainant cum presenter of Exhibit P-2 first information report, has unimpeachingly narrated entire ocular story of the incident observed and endured and has said that incident relates to the night of 4.9.2015, I and my wife were sleeping in an adjacent quarter, No. 19, which was vacant and there was a gate connecting quarter No. 19 and 20. My brother Naresh and his wife Shakuntala were sleeping in the Angan of quarter No. 20, at about 3 to 4, I heard a sound of “Orrey Orrey”. Hearing so, I came towards Angan of my quarter and witnessed two persons wearing penties (Kacchhas) near the place, where by Bhabhi slept. My brother was sleeping inside the room, upon witnessing them, I raised alarm and cried, my brother Naresh came out of the room. All the three intruders proceeded towards gate. They were bearing latths-wooden (wands) in their hands, I followed to catch them. One person jumped across the wall from the place where my father was sleeping and two persons felt down being entangled in the barbed wire and felt down. All the three intruders proceeded towards gate. They were bearing latths-wooden (wands) in their hands, I followed to catch them. One person jumped across the wall from the place where my father was sleeping and two persons felt down being entangled in the barbed wire and felt down. One amongst them fled away and another started trying to jump across the wall. I got hold of both the feet of that person and tried to pull him towards my side, his companions were trying to pull him other side. One person gave me a latth (wooden wand) hit on my hand and repeated two to three blows, resultantly intruder got slipped from grip. My Bhabhi Shakuntala was there near gate, sustaining injuries on her head and face. Thieves had taken away ear rings of my Bhabhi, we went to take care of our father, who was not able to speak and was having injury on his head, blood was oozing out. All the three intruders were of common height and built, aging about 20 to 25 years. Thana was informed telephonically and we took our father to hospital. Naresh and Shakuntala were also taken there. My father was referred to Bikaner, who died on the way, then we brought him back to Rawatsar Hospital and I registered a written report – Ex.P.2 of the incident, which bears my signature. Police registered a FIR, which is Ex.P.3 bearing my signature. He has further narrated the sequence and manner of police process and investigation and has said about preparation of several exhibits, namely, Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and have admitted his signatures on these exhibits and having well recognizing both the accused in the Court, this witness has explicitly said that both these accused had entered in our house and had committed the incident, third person is not present today. He has also said that ACJM Nohar had conducted identification test parade of these accused persons in Sub Jail, then I identified accused Jagdish and Sukhveer there and identification test parade is Ex.P.12 bearing my signatures. The proceedings of identification with respect to accused Sukhveer is Ex.P.13 bearing my signature as ‘A’ to ‘B’, then I identified accused Dholia in test parade and its memo is Ex.P.14 bearing my signature. The proceedings of identification with respect to accused Sukhveer is Ex.P.13 bearing my signature as ‘A’ to ‘B’, then I identified accused Dholia in test parade and its memo is Ex.P.14 bearing my signature. The examination in chief of this eye witness elucidates the factual aspect of the incident, which has been experienced and observed by this complainant witness. This witness has elaborately been crossed examined by the counsel for the accused and there appears no abnormality emerging out of the cross-examination, but he has said that the accused were three persons and culprits standing nearby gate was the same, who went towards the cot of my father and fled away after jumping across the wall. He has also said that accused persons were barefooted and were not wearing anything in their feets. He has also said that I could witness wand (latth) in the hands of two accused persons, which were measuring about 5 ft. in length. He has also said that at the time of identification parade, I was unknown of their names and has specifically denied having seen them earlier or putting the accused persons to their observation or show earlier and has also denied alleged fact of showing the accused to him by police men earlier at Thana. 7. Another eye-witness PW-2 Shakuntla, who is also an injured, has said that the incident relates to the night of 4.9.2005. My father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping in “Bakhal” ahead of the house, I and my husband Naresh were sleeping in verandah and my Devar Rakesh and Maya were sleeping in Angan. My husband went inside the room at about 12.00 to 1.00 midnight after feeling cool, my mother-in-law also went inside the room at 2:00 to 2.30 in the night. Around quarter to four, I felt somebody touching my ears, I raised my hand, then got a blow upon my face of some one, which caused hurt on my lips. My husband went inside the room at about 12.00 to 1.00 midnight after feeling cool, my mother-in-law also went inside the room at 2:00 to 2.30 in the night. Around quarter to four, I felt somebody touching my ears, I raised my hand, then got a blow upon my face of some one, which caused hurt on my lips. Upon bearing blow, I raised “Orrey” sound, then was threatened and asked to keep mum, I tried to sit, then again got a hit on my head, I raised cry, then another blow was hit at the finger of my left hand, I saw three men were there, two were standing near my Charpai (Cot) and third one was near gate, all the three were wearing panties (kacchhas), all three were young and were around the age of 22 to 25 years, hearing my cry, my husband, my devar Rakesh and Maya came and after seeing them, they (culprits) fled towards outside. Rakesh ran behind them, one culprit felt down there, getting entangled in the wires, when that culprit tried to ascend the wall, Rakesh caught hold of his legs. Two culprits, who had jumped across the wall, were pulling wall-ascending culprit, towards their side, two culprits, who were outside gave a lathi blow upon the hand of Rakesh, resultantly, Rakesh felt and after getting loosening of the grip, culprits fled away. Culprit touching my ears got my gold earrings removed from my ears. Blood was coming out from my head injury. My cloths got blood smeared and this witness has also identified and recognized the accused Dholia and Sukhveer at the time of recording the evidence as well, she has also said that police had taken my Salwar vide Ex.P1, which bears my signatures from ‘A’ to ‘B.’ This witness has also elaborately and thoroughly been cross-examined in about three and half pages cross, but apart from the nicities sustained in a micro narration, nothing extenuating has come from the cross of this injured lady-witness. 8. PW-1 Naresh S/o Banwari Lal who is also an eye-witness has narrated almost similar kind of incident and has said that my father was a Chaukidar in Irrigation Department and we were residing at Sichai Colony, Rawatsar, in Government Quarter. Our family comprises of myself, my brother Rakesh, my mother, wife of Rakesh and of mine and my father. 8. PW-1 Naresh S/o Banwari Lal who is also an eye-witness has narrated almost similar kind of incident and has said that my father was a Chaukidar in Irrigation Department and we were residing at Sichai Colony, Rawatsar, in Government Quarter. Our family comprises of myself, my brother Rakesh, my mother, wife of Rakesh and of mine and my father. Occurrence relates to midnight of 4th-5th September 2005. My parents were sleeping ahead of the quarter in Bakhal. I was sleeping in the Angan with my wife in other side of Angan. My brother Rakesh and his wife were sleeping and at about half past two or at three, I felt cold, so went inside the room to sleep. My mother too went in other room to sleep. At about four, my brother and my wife raised alarm, hearing them and hearing their cry, I came out from room and observed that Rakesh was running towards outside. I too came out of the house. Rakesh was holding legs of a person (intruder), who was half side out of the wall and half towards other inner side, soon I reached near Rakesh, but culprit after getting release from the grip of Rakesh, fled away from the wall. My mother said that your father has not awaken, so we went near our father and found his head bleeding. My wife also sustained injury on her head and blood was oozing. My wife apprised that one person has taken away, her earrings after causing her head injury, then Rakesh took my father and my wife to Rawatsar Hospital, where my wife and Rakesh were admitted and my father was referred to Bikaner because of extreme injury, he has also said that the culprits were three, one felt down there, after getting entangled in wire, they were aging 20 to 22 years and were wearing “Kacchha Baniyan” and were of normal built, he has also said that my father died because of injury. This witness has also elaborately been cross-examined but no feebility has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as well. 9. This witness has also elaborately been cross-examined but no feebility has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness as well. 9. PW-4 Keshar Kanwar has also made utterances of ocular version and has said that the incident relates way back to about two years, I was sleeping ahead of my Dhani in the night, at about 12 to 1, somebody touched my ears, I awakened and saw, two persons standing, one of them removed by ears Surliya Patti, I cried, Devi Singh son of my brother-in-law came there and ran behind them. Devi Singh could not capture them and they fled away. Two out of them were having “SERU” (wood support of cot) police had come at about 11 to 12 and prepared spot map, which bears my thumb impression. The culprits were not wearing cloths, they were of young age, in cross-examination this witness has also said that cot comprises of two eesh, two SERUs and four legs and the lengthy support is known as eesh and smaller is “SERUs” it measures two and half feet to three feet of length. 10. Recovery witness PW.5 Gulab Singh has narrated regarding recovery of Surliya Patti which was looted from Smt. Gulabi and he has uttered that about two years back, I gone to Luharu with Police, then Jagdish was under arrest. On his information, Surliya Patti was recovered well covered in a plastic bag and buried under his slum hutment situated in Loco Colony, Luharu. This Surliya Patti was removed and taken away from the ears of my wife. ExP.15 is its recovery memo, which contains my signature from A to B and the spot map is Ex.P.16 which too bears my signature's and has denied recovery of the same in his absence or signing the papers at Rawatsar Thana. PW.8 Heeralal is a police constable, who has deposited the FSL samples and this witness has observed that 10 sealed packets were given to him with a forwarding letter and he deposited the same with FSL, Jaipur in a sealed position. His departure from thana is entered at serial number 765 in Rojnamcha (G.D.) it is Ex.P.22 having my signature as A to B and C to D signature belongs to Rambhaj and its copy which is available on the record is Ex.P.22A. His departure from thana is entered at serial number 765 in Rojnamcha (G.D.) it is Ex.P.22 having my signature as A to B and C to D signature belongs to Rambhaj and its copy which is available on the record is Ex.P.22A. My return entry is mentioned at serial number 875, which is Ex.P.23 and its copy is Ex.P.23A, which contains my signatures. Carbon copy of forwarding letter is Ex.P.24 and FSL receipt is Ex.P.25. The samples were intact during my possession. PW.16 Laxmanram a police constable has said that six packets mark A to F were given to me by SP office, Hanumangarh with a covering letter for deposit in FSL and has said that after obtaining sealed packets and getting a forwarding letter Ex.P.4 issued, the same were deposited with FSL, Jodhpur in sealed position. Deposit receipt is Ex.P.44. My departure is entered in Rojnamcha at S. No. 1197. Its entry is Ex.P.45, which contains my signature, its certified copy is Ex.P.45A and entry of my return in Rojnamcha register is mentioned at S. No. 1400 and its original entry is Ex.P.46, which contains my signature and its certified copy is Ex.P.46A PW.6 Kurnda Ram is a witness of foot-moulds has said that Police prepared the site map of deceased Banwari's quarter in his presence, which is Ex.P.7, he had put his C to D signatures on it and police had taken foot-moulds of unknown persons vide Ex.P.11 with the help of plaster of paris. Ex.P.11 bears my signature from C to D. Rakesh son of deceased Banwari Lal had also given a blood stained bed-sheet to police, which was sealed per Ex.P.9, it contains my signature and the blood stained soil was also taken vide Ex.P.10 and also recovered a “Kacchha and Baniyan” vide Ex.P.17 and on 30/09/2005 and recovered a SERU (wooden cot support) from a person vide Ex.P.18, its spot map is Ex.P.19 and these papers bears my signatures. It has also been said that Police had taken Kurta and Salvaar of Smt. Shakuntala vide Ex.P.1, it contains my signature, in cross-examination, he has narrated going through the contents of Fard thoroughly. PW.7 Devi Singh has stated that Gulab Singh is my paternal uncle, who resides in D.W.D. Chak 25 Dhani. Kesar Kanwar is my aunt. It has also been said that Police had taken Kurta and Salvaar of Smt. Shakuntala vide Ex.P.1, it contains my signature, in cross-examination, he has narrated going through the contents of Fard thoroughly. PW.7 Devi Singh has stated that Gulab Singh is my paternal uncle, who resides in D.W.D. Chak 25 Dhani. Kesar Kanwar is my aunt. Our Dhanies are situated together, the incident pertains to night time of quarter past one to half past one of about two years back, I was sleeping in my Dhani and heard cry of my aunt. I rushed towards my aunt and saw three persons fleeing away towards “arrund” Khet. I followed them to catch them but failed, I came back to my aunt and enquired, she informed that three persons have taken away her Surliya Patti. Police had come in the morning and prepared spot map, which is Ex.P.21 which contains my signature from A to B. This witness has also pointed out that all the three persons were wearing Kachha (Penties) and were bare-feeted, nothing abnormal has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness. PW.9 Raghuveer is also a witness of specimen footmoulds and he has said that the sample of foot-moulds of accused Jagdish were taken before me by Tehsildar Rawatsar Shri Udaiveer Singh vide Fard Ex.P.26. The samples were sealed on the spot, which contains my signature from A to B and sample foot-mould of another accused Sukhveer's right and left foot were also taken and sealed vide Ex.P.27, which bears my signature from A to B. Accused Dholia @ Umariya was arrested on 15/2/2006 by SI Hetram before me. Its Fard Ex.P.28 has got my signature as A to B. The accused was kept “Baaparda” (veil masked). From a short cross, nothing abnormal has come out. Its Fard Ex.P.28 has got my signature as A to B. The accused was kept “Baaparda” (veil masked). From a short cross, nothing abnormal has come out. PW.10 Rambhaj, ASI who was posted as Maalkhana in-charge at thana Rawatsar on 5/9/2005 has said that, I had entered all the Maalkhanas in register at S. No. 307 sealed packet mark A containing blood stained Baniyan of deceased Banwari, Packet B containing blood stained soil, packet mark-C containing plain soil, packet mark D containing blood stained Salvaar Kurta of Smt. Shakuntala, packet mark E containing blood stained bed-sheet of deceased Banwarilal and packet mark F1 to F6 sealed packets containing to foot-moulds taken from the unknown persons and a pant having sticker of “Pink and Pink” and a Baniyan consigned to me and I, further delivered these articles on 30/09/2005 to Dharam Punia, comprises of a sealed packet mark F and a sealed packet Mark H and I. He has also said that the footmoulds of accused Sukhveer and Jagdish, which were consigned to me and were entered by me at S. No. 329 in the Maalkhana register and I also entered one sealed packet mark S, which was given to me by Dharam Punia on 04/10/2005 containing Surli Patti, which I entered in Maalkhana register at No. 331 and has also said that he delivered such packets in a sealed position to Constable Heera Lal, who returned its receipt No. 448 on 15/10/2005 and on 21/10/2005 Constable Laxman was also given Mark A, B, C, D, E, F in perfect condition to deposit in FSL, who returned its receipt No. 312 on 22/10/2007. Ex.P.26 is fard foot-mark of Jagdish and Ex.P.27 is fard foot-mark sample of accused Sukhveer, which contains my signatures, its entry is at S. No. 307 in the register and original entry is Ex.P.29. He has also said that S. No. 329 is a deposit of Ex.P.30 and S. No. 331 relates to deposit of Ex.P.21. He has also narrated that Ex.P30 relates to FSL deposit given to Constable Heera, which contains C to D my signature and E to F Heeralal's signature, he has also said that the copies of Ex.P.29, P.30 and P.31, are available on record as Ex.P.29A, 30-A and 31-A, in cross-examination he has said that the sealed packets were having seals of SHO. PW.12 Udaiveer Singh is an Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar, Rawatsar, who has narrated factum of taking samples of mould plaster of accused Jagdish vide Ex.P.26 and other accused Sukhveer @ Kulli's mould vide Ex.P.27 and has said that these exhibits bear his signatures and has further said that the samples were sealed by me, nothing abnormal has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness. PW.13 Amilal a witness of arrest of Sukhveer, has said that Ex.P.29 is arrest memo of Sukhveer, it contains my signature from A to B and Ex.P.29 is arrest memo of Jagdish, both were kept “Baaparda” (veil masked). PW.14 Ramesh Singh witness of Ex.P.28 arrest memo of accused Dholia has also said that it contains his signatures from C to D and has said that the accused was kept “Baaparda” (veil masked) and with such a warning. Accused Dholia informed the spot of event on 27/2/2006 to SHO Baalaram. Ex.P.38 is its Fard which contains my signature from A to B and the accused was under “Baaparda” (veil masked) at the time of the process. PW.15 Kuldeep, photographer, has said that he had taken photographs of deceased Banwarilal on the instruction of police from Sichai Colony, Rawatsar from his quarter. The negatives are Ex.P.39 to P.42 and their positive photographs are Ex.P.39A to P.42A, which contains my signatures and he has also said that after preparing photographs those were delivered to Rawatsar Police. PW.17 Balwant Singh Bhati is a judicial officer, who has conducted identity test parade in Sub Jail, Nohar of accused Dholia @ Umariya @ Umrao son of Chetram @ Kalu, and he has said that its request letter is Ex.P.47. The identification parade was scheduled for 24/2/2006. Ex.P.48 is its summon and a letter sent to In-charge Sub Jail Nohar for necessary arrangements for the identification parade is Ex.P.49, which contains my signatures and has said that on 24/2/2006, he accomplished the identity test parade in Sub Jail Nohar and has corroborated Ex.P.49, 50 and 51. This witness has categorically stated that witness Rakesh Kumar properly identified accused Dholia @ Umariya, its memo is Ex.P.14 and has narrated the entire process of identification, their exhibits and transmission of its report per registered post to the Judicial Magistrate Rawatsar. 11. PW.18. This witness has categorically stated that witness Rakesh Kumar properly identified accused Dholia @ Umariya, its memo is Ex.P.14 and has narrated the entire process of identification, their exhibits and transmission of its report per registered post to the Judicial Magistrate Rawatsar. 11. PW.18. Hetram is ASI of Police Station, Rawatsar a witness of arrest of accused Dholia @ Umariya vide Ex.P.28, he has said that accused was arrested from Baloda, Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu and the accused was kept Baaparda with such instructions. He has also narrated that the accused informed that he has concealed earrings in his room which could be recovered, its information is Ex.P.55 bearing my signature and thumb impression of the accused, and subsequent investigation was conducted by Balaram SI whom he consigned the record. He has also stated that Ex.P.28 is arrest memo of accused Dholia, no abnormality has emerged from the cross of this witness as well. PW.19 Balaram SI is an investigating officer, who has partly investigated the matter and has submitted charge sheet against accused Dholia, and has narrated factum of recovery made on the information of Dholia @ Umariya and has said that Ex.P.56 is the information provided and in pursuance of the same, the venue of the incident was apprised vide Ex.P.38. Ex.P.45 is an application moved before JM, Nohar for identification of accused Dholia, it contains my signature from E to F. PW.21 Dharm Punia, main investigating officer, has uttered that he got telephonic message regarding intrusion of thieves in the house of Banwari Lal Chowkidar and has said that the information was entered in Rojnamcha at S. No. 200 and Ex.P.63 is its actual entry, containing my signature and its copy is Ex.P.63A. He has narrated entire sequence of the investigation and has said that after reaching at venue of Sichai Colony, I found that the injured were already reached hospital and Banwari was referred for Bikaner. Rakesh Kumar S/o. Banwari Lal presented Ex.P.2 before me, on which I made an endorsement for registering a case and E to F is my signature. He has narrated entire sequence of the investigation and has said that after reaching at venue of Sichai Colony, I found that the injured were already reached hospital and Banwari was referred for Bikaner. Rakesh Kumar S/o. Banwari Lal presented Ex.P.2 before me, on which I made an endorsement for registering a case and E to F is my signature. He has fortified and corroborated Ex.P.4, P.5, P.6, P.7, P.8, P.9, P.10, P.11 in his evidence and has also stated lifting of chance foot moulds and sealing thereof and has said that vide Ex.P.17 “Kacchha and Baniyan” of the accused were also recovered and he has further corroborated Ex.P.21 and has said that accused Sukhveer @ Kulli was arrested vide Ex.P.28 per production warrant and was kept “Baparda” (veil masked) and Accused Jagdish was arrested per Ex.P.29 production warrant and was kept “Baaparda” (veil masked), he has also corroborated Ex.P.66, P.67, P.20 and P.68, recovery of “SERU” from Jagdish and has further said that in pursuance of information, Jagdish got one SERU recovered vide Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 in its spot map bearing my signatures and Ex.P.19 is its hallat-mauka, he has also said that specimen foot-moulds of Jagdish and Sukhveer, were taken before executive magistrate Udaiveer Singh vide Ex.P.26 and P.27. Recovery of “Surli Patti” is also stated to have been made from Jagdish on the basis of his information Ex.P.70, which was got recovered from Loco Colony, Loharu from a hutment, this “Surli Patti” was of Gulab Kanwar W/o. Gulab Singh and its Fard is Ex.P.15. Identification test parade was also conducted by ACJM, Naipal Singh of accused Sukhveer and Jagdish. FSL report is Ex.P.71, finger-print bureau report is Ex.P.72. Subsequently, challan was filed against Jagdish and Sukhveer @ Kulli and investigation against Dholia was kept pending under 173(8), during cross all the articles have been properly narrated as well in the cross-examination, this witness has said that the length of article 4 “SERU” was of about 86 cm. 12. PW.11 Dr. Subsequently, challan was filed against Jagdish and Sukhveer @ Kulli and investigation against Dholia was kept pending under 173(8), during cross all the articles have been properly narrated as well in the cross-examination, this witness has said that the length of article 4 “SERU” was of about 86 cm. 12. PW.11 Dr. Hari Singh Nehra has specifically described the injuries of Banwarilal, Shakuntala, Rakesh Kumar and Keshav Kanwar, as under:- ^^fnukad 5&9&2005 dks eSa jktdh; fpfdRlky; jkorlj esa fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ds in ij rSukr Fkk] ml jkst iqfyl izfrosnu ij Jh cuokjhyky iq= x.kirjke mez 48 o"kZ tkfr dM+okljk tks flapkbZ dkWyksuh jkorlj dk jgus okyk Fkk ds vkbZ pksVksa dk eqvk;uk fd;k Fkk] ftlds 'kjhj ij fuEu pksVsa Fkh%& ¼1½ dqpyk gqvk ?kko 5 xq.kk 3 xq.kk 3 lseh- vkdkj dk] nka;s ÝUVy cksu ij gMMh VwVh gqbZ FkhA ¼2½ dqpyk gqvk ?kko 8 xq.kk 5 xq.kk 3 lseh- vkdkj dk] nka;h vka[k ds Åij Fkk ftlds uhps dh gMMh VwVh gqbZ Fkh] czsu ckgj vk;k gqvk FkkA vka[k czsdu FkhA ¼3½ dqpyk gqvk ?kko 2 xq.kk 1 xq.kk 1 lseh- vkdkj dk] nkfguh vka[k ds ihNs dh rjQ FkkA ¼4½ cka;h vka[k Cysdu Fkh] pksVxzLr O;fDr csgks'k Fkk o mldh gkykr xEHkhj FkhA ?kkoksa ls [kwu cg jgk Fkk] mYVh vk jgh Fkh] ukd ls [kwu vk jgk FkkA IykaVj ,DlVsa'ku FkkA pksVxzLr O;fDr dks vkbZ-oh-QY;w] esfuVksy] MSDlksuk] izhekdksVZ] eksuksVsd tsUVk nsus ds i'pkr ih-ch-,e- gksLihVy ds U;wjksltZjh foHkkx esa jsQj fd;k FkkA lHkh pksVsa dqUnkyk }kjk dkfjr FkhA pksV ua- 1 o 2 xEHkhj izd`fr dh] pksV ua- 3 lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh FkhA pksV ua- 4 ds fy, ,Dl&js dh jk; nh xbZ FkhA pksVksa dh vof/k 12 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA mlh jkst lqcg 10 ctdj 15 feuV ij eSaus mDr O;fDr dk 'ko&ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk ftldh e`R;q esjs }kjk ih-ch-,e- gkLihVy ds fy, jSQj djus ds i'pkr jkLrs esa gh gks xbZ FkhA ekSr dh vof/k 6 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA ckg~; :i%& 'ko dk psgjk ihyk iM+k gqvk FkkA iksLVekVZe LVsfuax 'kjhj ds ihNs okys fgLls ij pkyw gks xbZ FkhA cuokjh ds 'kjhj ij iksLVekVZe esa ogh pksVsa vafdr dh xbZ gS tks Åij eSaus mlds pksV izfrosnu esa vkuh n'kkZ;h gSA mldh vkWa[kksa dh iqrfy;ka QSyh gqbZ FkhA czsu dh f>Yyh ,oa czsu pksV ua-1 vkSj 2 ds uhps datLVsM fQj dgk fd {kfrxzLr ,oa datLVsM FkhA o{k%& iywjk] 'okl uyh] nka;k&ckak QsQM+k datLVsM FkkA gn`; ds nkfgus Hkkx esa [kwu Fkk o cka;k Hkkx [kkyh FkkA cM+h [kwu dh ukfM+;ksa esa [kwu FkkA mnj%& isV dh f>Yyh] xzkl uyh] vek'k;] NksVh&cM+h vkar] yhoj] Liyhu] xqnsZ datLVsM FksA eq=ky; esa is'kkc FkkA jk;%& esjh jk; esa e`R;q dk izdkj dksek Fkk tks pksVksa }kjk fnekx {kfrxzLr gksus ds dkj.k dkfjr gqvkA pksVsa izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqØe esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr FkhA cuokjhyky dk pksV izfrosnu izn'kZ ih-32 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj o lh ls Mh mldk igpku fpUg vafdr gSA 'ko&ijh{k.k fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-33 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS tks esjh dyeh gSA mlh jkst eSaus jkds'k dqekj iq= cuokjhyky mez 23 o"kZ tkfr tkV fuoklh flapkbZ dkWyksuh jkorlj ds 'kjhj ij vk;h pksVksa dk eqvk;uk fd;k o fuEu pksVsa ik;h%& ¼1½ [kjksap 3 xq.kk 2 lseh- vkdkj dh] nkfgus gkFk dh ckgjh lrg ijA ¼2½ cgqr lh [kjksaps 2 xq.kk 1 ls 1 xq.kk 1 lseh- vkdkj dh] cka;h dksguh ijA ¼3½ cgqr lh [kjksaps 2 xq.kk 1 lseh- ls ysdj 1 xq.kk 1 lseh- vkdj dh] nka;h dksguh ijA ¼4½ cgqr lh yEch [kjksaps 5 lseh- ls 2 lseh- vkdkj dh] nkfguh lkFky dh vkxs okyh lrg ij FkhA ¼5½ cgqr lh yEch [kjksaps 7 lseh- ls ysdj 2 lseh- vkdkj dh] cka;h lkFky ds vkxs okys fgLls ijA ¼6½ uhyxw fu'kku 10 xq.kk 3 lseh- vkdkj dk] Nkrh ds ihNs okyh lrg ij FkkA lHkh pksVsa dqUnkyk ls dkfjr ,oa lkekU; izd`fr dh Fkh] pksVksa dh vof/k 12 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA ;g pksV izfrosnu izn'kZ ih-34 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj o lh ls Mh et:c dk igpku fpUg vafdr gSA mlh fnu eSaus Jherh 'kdqUryk iRuh ujs'k dqekj mez 21 o"kZ tkfr tkV fuoklh flapkbZ dkWyksuh jkorlj dh pksVksa dk eqvk;uk fd;k o fuEu pksVsa ik;h%& ¼1½ dqpyk gqvk ?kko 1 xq.kk 1 xq.kk 1 lseh- vkdkj dk] cka;s gkFk dh NksVh okyh vaxqyh ijA ftlds lkFk esa gkFk ij lkstu FkhA ¼2½ dVk gqvk ?kko 5 xq.kk 3 xq.kk 2 lseh- vkdkj dk] nka;h ÝUVy ikVZ ij FkkA ¼3½ dqpyk gqvk ?kko 4 xq.kk 1 xq.kk 1 lseh- vkdkj dk] eqag ds cka;s dksus ij FkkA pksV ua- 1 o 3 dqUnkyk ls dkfjr o pksV ua- 2 /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls dkfjr FkhA pksV ua- 2 o 3 lkekU; izd`fr dh o pksV ua- 1 ds fy, ,Dl&js dh jk; nh xbZA pksVksa dh vof/k 12 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA ;g pksV izfrosnu izn'kZ ih-35 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj o lh ls Mh vkgr dk igpku fpUg vafdr gSA fnukad 7&9&05 dks iqfyl izfrosnu ij eSaus Jherh dslj daoj iRuh xqykcflag mez 61 o"kZ tkfr jktiwr fuoklh 25 Mh-MCyw-Mh jksgh dh jgus okyh Fkh dh pksVksa dk eqvk;uk fd;k o fuEu pksVsa ik;h%& ¼1½ dVk gqvk ?kko 3 xq.kk 1@2 lseh- vkdkj dk] nka;s dku ds ckgjh fdukjs ij ftlds lkFk esa dku dk uhps okyk fgLlk dVk gqvk ¼VksuZ½ FkkA ¼2½ dVk gqvk ?kko 2 1@2 xq.kk 1@2 lseh- vkdj dk] cka;s dku ds uhps o ckgjh lrg ijA ftlds lkFk esa dku ds uhps dk fgLlk VksuZ FkkA mDr nksuksa pksVsa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ Fkh tks lkekU; izd`fr dh FkhA pksVksa dh vof/k 48 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA ;g pksV izfrosnu izn'kZ ih-36 esjk dyeh o , ls ch nL[rh gS ftl ij lh ls Mh vkgr dk igpku fpUg vafdr gSA esfMdy T;qfj"V ih-ch-,e- gkLihVy chdkusj ds uke et:c cuokjh dks jSQj djus ds fy, esjs }kjk fy[kh xbZ rgjhj izn'kZ ih-37 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA cuokjh ds 'kjhj ij vk;h gqbZ pksVsa pkjikbZ dh ydM+h ds ls: ls ekjus ij vkuh lEHko gSA^^ In cross examination, this Doctor has also said that injury number one of Ex.P34 may be caused by a fall on a solid surface but none other injury may result by a fall on hard surface and injuries pertaining to Ex.P35 may also not cause by fall on a solid surface. 13. Ex.P.71 FSL report discloses presence of human blood on all the articles Baniyan, blood smeared soil, Kurta, Salvar, Chadar and “SERU” (wooden cot danda). 14. Ex.P.72 expert report regarding comparison of the foot impressions of accused Jagdish and Sukhveer discloses that they have been found similar with each other i.e. the chance foot impressions and specimen foot impressions have been opined to be similar and matching. Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14 identification test parade report also indicates that both the accused Sukhveer and Dholia @ Umariya have been correctly identified by witness Rakesh Kumar and there is no entry of any objection regarding pre-showing or disclosure of facial identity earlier or anything of like nature is not there on Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. PW.3 Rakesh Kumar has reiterated this fact in his evidence as PW.3 that he identified Sukhveer and Dholia precisely and vide Ex.P.13 and P.14. “Kacchha Baniyan” and weapon of assault, wooden SERU has also been recovered from co-accused vide Ex.P.18. There are three injured eye witnesses, PW.3 Rakesh Kumar, PW.2 Shakuntala and PW.4 Kesar kanwar, their injury reports Ex.P.34, 35 and 36 are well narrated and corroborated and proved by the injured as well as by the medical expert Dr. Hanuman Singh Nehra, so the injuries sustained by the eye witnesses are properly explained and corroborated by medical evidence as discussed above, even injury sustained by deceased Banwari Lal vide Ex.P.32 have also been proved by PW.11 Dr. Hanuman Singh Nehra. 15. Ex.P.33 Postmortem report of deceased Banwarilal is also there, indicating cause of death as being injuries caused to the brain and found to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. Injury No. 2 as shown in Ex.P.32 also depicts fracture and brain material coming out. 16. There is no force in the contentions that punishment cannot run concurrently both in Sections 302 and 460 IPC, since provision of both the Sections postulates distinct offences and both could run concurrent, section 302 being a macro provision attract life imprisonment or even dealt penalty, whereas Section 460 is a micro provisions postulating attribution to certain peculiar kind of crimes committed concurrently with homicidal acts. 17. 17. Commissioning formidable acts of homicide after barging into the dwellings of innocent masses, indiscriminate beatings, tearing of humans organs for removal of their ornaments and smashing human body of innocents with massive blows, post peculiar wearings of "kaccha" to disseminate terror in the society and manner of inflicting lethal blows on vitals of victim, attracts, stringent punishment equal to the gravity perpetrated, so, this court express reluctance to interfere with the findings of the trial court and confirm the same. 18. Afore-discussed evidence amply connect the accused persons with the crime and delineate a positive evidence establishing involvement of the accused persons in causing death of one of the victim Banwarilal and impinging injuries upon others, while committing act of robbery at mid night after lurking house trespass, both the accused persons have been identified by the injured persons, who witnessed them, while subjected to perpetration of crime, at the time of causing robbery and assault. They have been identified in the identity test parade as well, their foot-moulds have also got matching similarity and incriminatory articles seized on their information have been found stained with human blood. The testimony of the eye witnesses and injuries caused to them is well corroborated by medical evidence altogether. 19. In totality of the evidence, facts and circumstances of the matter, prosecution has succeeded in establishing their case, well proved against the appellant accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 20. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions put forward by both the sides and have also scanned and scrutinized entire materials available on record as above and repeat that prosecution has fairly succeeded in establishing and proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons, so feel that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from the vice of perversity or illegality and find no reason to interfere with the judgment impugn and uphold the same. 21. Therefore, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. A copy of the judgment be kept on both the appeal files.