Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2015 (HP)

Neelam Sharma v. Satish Kumar

2016-09-20

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the complainant/appellant against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 30.11.2012 in Sessions Trial No. 13/7 of 2010, whereby, it acquitted the accused/respondents for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25-27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 22.12.2009, Inspector Ram Singh, PW-15, received an information on telephone from accused Satish Kumar that a person had died due to gun shot injury in Balh Churani forest on which rapat, Ext. PW15/A, was entered. PW-15 along with other police officials thereafter proceeded to the spot where statement, Ex.PW1/A of Neelam Sharma, PW-1, daughter of deceased Ratti Ram was recorded. Rukka was sent for registration of the case on which FIR Ex.PW13/C was registered. On 21.12.2009, Ratti Ram had left his house at about 8.00 a.m. by saying to his daughter Neelam Sharma that he would first go to the house of Karma in village Chujala and thereafter would go to attend his duties in Harlog. He did not come on 21.12.2009 and thereafter Neelam Sharma rang him on his cell phone No. 98164-11152, but it was switched off. Subsequently, she rang up to forest guard Harlog beat and inquired about her father who told her that her father did not attend duties on 21.12.2009. Thereafter, Neelam Sharma rang up to accused Satish Kumar and inquired about her father and accused Satish Kumar told her that her father was alright and would come back home. Accused Satish Kumar was not having good terms with the family of Ratti Ram because a case regarding land was pending in the High Court. Disclosure statements under Sections 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar, Ext. PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C were recorded in the presence of Jaswant Singh, (PW-2) and Kuldeep Singh, (PW-3). Both accused disclosed to the police that dead body of Ratti Ram was concealed in the jungle and they were having knowledge of the same and could get recovered the same. PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C were recorded in the presence of Jaswant Singh, (PW-2) and Kuldeep Singh, (PW-3). Both accused disclosed to the police that dead body of Ratti Ram was concealed in the jungle and they were having knowledge of the same and could get recovered the same. In pursuance to their disclosure statements, both accused persons led the police party and the witnesses to a place situated in Bal Churani Jungle and on their demarcation of the spot, dead body of Ratti Ram was recovered which was covered with branches of tree vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B. Dead body was identified by Neelam Sharma, (PW-1). A bag was also recovered lying nearby the dead body which was also identified by PW-1 belonging to her father. Dry soil was also taken from the spot by the police. Inspector Ram Singh, prepared spot map of recovery of dead body, Ex.PW15/D. Both accused also led police party to a place in the jungle where gun shot was fired by accused Satish Kumar. C. Raj Kumar conducted videography of the spot where dead body was lying and took photographs with digital camera. Blood drops were visible on dry leaves and on stones as well as soil. Front denture containing five teeth was lying on the spot. Two pellets marks were visible on the stems of bushes. Pellets were found embedded and removed with a stone. Pellets Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, Wad Ex. P-4, match box Ex.P-5, stone Ex.P-7, dry leaves Ex.P-8, soil Ex.P-9 and denture Ex.P-11 were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW2/B sealed on the spot and separate seal taken on cloth. Spot map, Ex.PWQ15/F was prepared. Dead body of Ratti Ram was sent for postmortem examination to C.H. Ghumarwin vide docket Ex.PW7/A. Inquest papers, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D were prepared. Accused Rajeev Kumar vide his disclosure statement, Ex.PW15/C in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 had effected the recovery of gun, Ex.P-27, vide memo Ex.PW15/G, from his house. Accused Lekh Ram on 25.12.2009 produced gun licence, Ex.P-28 vide recovery memo, Ex.PW6/A. Rattan Lal, PW-5, on 21.12.2009 at about 6.00 a.m., when he left his house for duty, heard some noise of foot steps and on inquiry found accused Satish Kumar and Chottu going some where and identified them. Accused Rajeev Kumar also gave disclosure statement, Ex.PW8/A before the police that he had concealed empty/blank cartridge after use inside his house. Accused Rajeev Kumar also gave disclosure statement, Ex.PW8/A before the police that he had concealed empty/blank cartridge after use inside his house. Empty cartridge Ex.P-23 was recovered vide memo Ex.PW2/F. Accused Rajeev Kumar also produced to the police vide memo Ex.PW2/C, his jeans, inner and sweater Ex.P-17. Accused Satish Kumar also produced to the police pants, T-shirt, black inner and half sweater vide memo Ex.PW2/D. SI Megh Singh on 27.12.2009, conducted search of house of accused Lekh Ram and during search two live cartridges Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37 were recovered vide memo Ex.PW9/A. Si Megh Singh took into possession jamabandi Ex.PW27/A vide memo Ex.PW4/A. 3. Dr. N.K. Sankhyan, on 23.12.2009 conducted postmortem examination of dead body of Ratti Ram and found multiple perforated wounds without charring, blackening, tattooing, signing of hair, these were due to pellets. Three pallets were taken out from skin and subcutaneous tissue. Total perforated wound on front of chest were 45, on left side of abdomen 3, over right shoulder 24, over right side of face 4, over chin 3, over medial side of thigh left side one, over right thigh 12, proximal part of nose 1 with fracture nasal bone. Total 93 perforated wounds and total six pellets were taken out. There was no exist wound. He prepared postmortem report, Ex.PW7/B and as per his final opinion, Ex.PW7/D, deceased Ratti Ram died due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of injuries to lungs and heart and hypovolumic shock as a result of gun shot injury. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was instantaneous to half an hour. Injury No. 7 was sufficient to cause death in a normal course and was due to gun shot. He also handed over to the police viscera along with shirt, brown sweater, pants, under shirt, underwear, parna and woolen shawl of Ratti Ram. The case property was entered in Malkhana register at serial No. 439 as well as at serial No. 440 on 29.12.2009, C. Gulam Hussain deposited seven parcels having seal of Hospital along with specimen seal and docket addressed to FSL, Junga and same was entered at serial No. 440 of Malkhana register. Abstract is Ext.PW13/A. On 31.12.2009, H.C. Jogesh Kumar, handed over 16 parcels along with specimen seal and docket to C. Shyam Lal vide R.C. No. 197/2009, Ex.PW13/B and the same was deposited with FSL Junga. Abstract is Ext.PW13/A. On 31.12.2009, H.C. Jogesh Kumar, handed over 16 parcels along with specimen seal and docket to C. Shyam Lal vide R.C. No. 197/2009, Ex.PW13/B and the same was deposited with FSL Junga. Report of the FSL, Ex.PW7/C, reveals that no alcohol/poison could be detected. Another report of FSL, Ex.PW14/D was received. Human blood was found on leaves and soil taken from the spot as well as on the clothes of Ratti Ram. Blood was not detected on clothes of accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar. Report of FSL, Ex.PW14/E reveals that fire arm (SBBL gun) was in working order and cartridge case, Ex.E/5 has been fired from the said gun. 4. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 5. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and 25-27 of the Indian Arms Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 6. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents herein. 7. The complainant/appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant/appellant has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 8. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 9. 8. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 9. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 10. Deceased Ratti Ram suffered his end by a gun shot injury. The relevant incident of his standing allegedly inflicted with a fatal gun shot wound occurred in Balh Churani Forest. The accused/respondents herein are alleged to commit the murder of deceased Ratti Ram. The fatal gun shot injury is alleged to stand fired at the deceased by accused Rajeev Kumar from the licenced arm, Ex.P-27, of his father, accused Lekh Ram. The spent cartridge Ex.P-23 stood recovered from the house of accused Rajeev Kumar under recovery memo Ex.PW2/F. The FSL concerned in its opinion comprised in Ex.PW14/E has therein categorically echoed of cartridge Ex.E/5 standing fired from fire arm, Ex.E/4 (SBBL gun), a valid licence qua which stood issued by the competent Licencing Authority qua accused Lekh Ram. Furthermore, underscorings stand embodied therein qua traces of gun shot residue standing borne on the holes present on Exts. E/9a (a piece of cloth), E/9b (shirt), E/9c (pant), E/9d (Sweater), E/9e (T-shirt) and E/9g (underwear). Ex.PW7/B is the postmortem report prepared by PW-7, Dr. N.K. Sankhan, in sequel to his subjecting the body of deceased Ratti Ram to postmortem examination. PW-7 in his testification has proved Ex.PW7/B. He has voiced therein qua his during the course of his subjecting the body of deceased to postmortem examination noticing thereon multiple perforated wounds without charring, blackening, tattooing, singing of hair. He attributes the existence of the aforesaid features on the body of the deceased to firing of pellets thereon. He testifies qua the demise of deceased occurring due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of injuries to lungs and heart and hypovolumic shock in sequel to a gun shot injury. 11. Apparently, the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. For the prosecution to succeed in a case anvilled upon circumstantial evidence, it was enjoined to prove by efficacious unflinching evidence each of the links in the chain of circumstances. 11. Apparently, the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. For the prosecution to succeed in a case anvilled upon circumstantial evidence, it was enjoined to prove by efficacious unflinching evidence each of the links in the chain of circumstances. Motive which ultimately does not hold any force in a case hinged upon direct evidence yet assumes significance in a case rested upon circumstantial evidence. The motive which stands attributed by the prosecution to the accused for theirs murdering the deceased stands grooved in there being an on going land dispute inter se them. Even though no record personificatory of an on going land dispute inter se the accused and the deceased exists on record also thereupon the attribution of a motive to the accused by the prosecution for theirs murdering the deceased would founder. However, even if, the aforesaid ascription of motive by the prosecution to the accused may not be nourished by any convincing evidence yet for want of evidence qua the facet aforesaid would not benumb the vigour of the prosecution case, if, other links in the chain of circumstances stand unflinchingly proven by the prosecution. Also if scientific ballistic evidence comprised in the report of the FSL concerned manifested in Ex.PW14/E squarely attracts the inculpation of the accused in the alleged offences, any lack of proof of link of motive would stand blunted. Also pronouncements occurring in the deposition of PW-7 qua the demise of the deceased ensuing from pellet injuries observed by him to be existing on the person of the deceased when cumulatively point qua accused Rajeev Kumar firing at the deceased the fatal gun shot from gun, Ex.P-27, concomitantly they assume paramount predominance dehors other links in the chain of circumstances remaining assumingly not cogently proven. 12. 12. The learned trial Court had disimputed credence to the prosecution version qua recovery of body of the deceased under memo Ex.PW2/B at the instance of accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar in succession to their respective precedingly recorded disclosure statements comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C, given PW-15 testifying qua his receiving from accused Satish Kumar a telephonic intimation on 22.12.2009 whereupon he recorded rapat Ex.PW15/A, information whereof held a narrative qua a person suffering death in Balh Churani Forest, also with PW-2 testifying qua his standing purveyed an intimation qua the aforesaid facet by the police besides with PW-15 unveiling in his testification qua both Satish Kumar and Rajiv Thakur besides PW Kuldeep Kumar, Jaswant Singh and Neelam proceeding to the site of occurrence begetting therefrom an inevitable inference qua the investigating Officer holding knowledge qua the place of hiding, concealment or keeping of the body of deceased preceding vis-a-vis effectuation of recovery of body of the deceased at the instance of the accused. The aforesaid conclusion qua prior to, accused Statish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar getting its place of keeping or hiding identified in sequel whereto memo Ex.PW2/B stood prepared, the Investigating Officer holding knowledge qua the place of its keeping would stand firmly engendered also would hold entrenched vigour only when evidently PW-2 and PW-15 along with the Investigating Officer had prior to the identification of body of deceased by the accused, located it in Balh Churani Jungle. However, there is no evidence existing on record portraying the factum of PW-15, PW-2 and PW Kuldeep Kumar prior to the accused Rajeev Kumar and Satish Kumar making disclosure statements comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C, in pursuance whereof they under memo Ex.PW2/B identified the place of concealment or keeping of body of deceased, theirs along with the Investigating Officer visiting it, significantly it was inapt for the learned trial Court to conclude of the Investigating Officer detecting the body of the deceased in Balh Churani Forest prior to his recording the disclosure statements of accused Satish Kumar and accused Rajeev Kumar comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C. Even if, the Investigating Officer besides PW-1 and PW-2 held knowledge qua the occurrence of body of the deceased Ratti Ram in Balh Churani Jungle on information qua its location standing purportedly telephonically purveyed by accused Satish Kumar whereupon a rapat comprised in Ex.PW15/A stood registered yet the mere factum of information qua its occurrence in the forest would not be connotative of PW- 15 (Investigating Officer) along with PW-1 and PW-2 visiting the relevant spot in the forest prior to the making of by co-accused Satish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar their respective disclosure statements comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C in sequel whereto the body of deceased stood identified by them under memo Ex.PW2/B, nor also any conclusion can stand fostered of the Investigating Officer dehors the accused identifying the place of its keeping and hiding preceding whereto they recorded their respective disclosure statements comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C, his previously locating the place whereat its location stood ultimately identified by accused Satish Kumar and accused Rajiv Kumar. Furthermore, no relevant unearthings upsurge in the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-15 qua dehors theirs holding knowledge qua the occurrence of body of deceased in Balh Churani, Jungle, theirs conjointly identifying its location prior to effectuation of its recovery at the instance of the accused under memo Ex.PW2/B. Also knowledge, if any, held by PW-1 and PW-2 qua occurrence of the body of the deceased in Balh Churani Jungle would ipso facto hold no connotation qua theirs purveying to the Investigating Officer with graphic specificity the exact place of its occurrence in the relevant jungle unless efficacious apposite unearthings upsurge in their testifications. However, for want of emergence of apposite upsurgings in the relevant testifications qua the facet aforesaid enhances the inference of the Investigating Officer of PW-1 and PW-2 not sharing with the Investigating Officer the exact place of its location in the relevant jungle wherefrom also an inference stands erected of the accused alone holding knowledge qua the place of hiding or keeping of body of deceased by them where to at they led the Investigating Officer whereupon memo Ex.PW2/B stood prepared. For reiteration, lack of upsurgings in their cross-examination qua the facet aforesaid, an apt inference therefrom is of assumingly even if PW-1, and PW-2 had held prior knowledge qua the place of keeping and hiding of the body of deceased in Balh Churani Jungle, nonetheless, the aforesaid knowledge held by PW-1 and PW-2 qua the precise site of its location therein cannot ipso facto stand concluded to be conveyed by them to the Investigating Officer unless their relevant cross-examinations qua the trite factum aforesaid unearthed evidence in affirmation thereto, whereas, with the aforesaid evidence being amiss it would be grossly inapt to conclude of even if assumingly PW-1 and PW-2 held knowledge qua the place of hiding and keeping of the body of deceased in Balh Churani Jungle, of thereupon the Investigating Officer also holding knowledge qua its exact place of location therein. The sequitur thereto is of the Investigating Officer acquiring knowledge only from the accused qua the place of hiding and keeping of the body of the deceased by them in Balh Churani Jungle, rendering hence redundant the effect, if any, of PW1 and PW-2 holding knowledge qua the place of hiding and keeping of the body of deceased Ratti Ram in Balh Churani Jungle. Preeminently also when the Investigating Officer hence evidently held no confabulations with PW-1 and PW-2 qua the relevant fact aforesaid rather he stood led by the accused to the place of its keeping and hiding by them, in sequel, it was grossly inapt for the learned trial Court to conclude of with PW-15 also PW-1 and PW-2 holding prior knowledge qua the occurrence of demise of Ratti Ram in Balh Churani Jungle, knowledge whereof occurred prior to the making of disclosure statements by accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar, begetting a concomitant conclusion of theirs visiting it along with the Investigating Officer, also theirs along with the Investigating Officer locating the place of its keeping and hiding nor it was apt for the learned trial Court to conclude of the disclosure statements of Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar lacking in sanctifying vigour. Cumulatively, hence the accused are to be concluded to be holding exclusive knowledge qua the place of its location also qua the exact place of its hiding or camouflaging by them whereupto they accosted the police, whereupon they identified it under memo Ex.PW2/B, preceding whereto their respective disclosure statements comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C stood recorded. The apt sequitur of the aforesaid inference qua accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar alone holding exclusive knowledge qua the place of hiding and keeping of the body of deceased Ratti Ram is qua also their respective disclosure statements, holding vigorous probative force, vigour whereof imbuing them stands grooved in the factum of exhibits aforesaid holding the respective signatures of the accused, signatures thereon of both standing not disputed by them whereupon they stand interdicted by the mandate of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to resile from the recitals occurring therein also stand concomitantly estopped to adduce oral evidence in digression thereto. Also likewise the existence of uncontested signatures of the marginal witnesses on memos Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/J, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW9/A, and Ex.PW15/G, also likewise attracts qua them the interdiction cast in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act against theirs orally digressing from the recorded recitals occurring there-within. Consequently, their oral testimonies in variation thereto hold no vigour. Consequently, their oral testimonies in variation thereto hold no vigour. Furthermore, with efficacious proof emanating qua disclosure statements of accused Satish Kumar and Rajiv Thakur respectively comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C also when in sequel thereto the place of concealment and keeping of the body of deceased stood identified by them under memo Ex.PW2/B, the factum of the prosecution not adducing cogent evidence in display of cellular communications occurring inter se co-accused Satish Kumar and PW-15 holding therein a narrative qua the body of the deceased occurring in Balh Churani Jungle appears to be inconsequential. Even, if the testimony of PW-5, who had last seen co-accused Satish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar going to the jungle on 21.12.2009 at about 6.00 a.m., hence holds therewithin the link evidence of his last seeing them in the vicinity of the site of occurrence, factum whereof qua his last seeing them in the vicinity of the site of occurrence stands testified by him to generate on his hearing sound of foot steps occurring outside his house whereupon he stood prodded to make an inquiry, inquiry whereof fetched/yielded to him an answer by accused Satish Kumar and accused Rajiv Thakur, identification whereof by him of the aforesaid stands testified by him to occur on his identifying their voices, may stand rendered discrepant, given PW-1 testifying qua her father departing from his house at about 8.00 a.m., whereas PW-5 deposing of his last seeing the accused in the vicinity of the site of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. yet it may not erode the efficacy of the disclosure statements of accused Satish Kumar and Rajiv Kumar manifested in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C also would not benumb the vigour of identification in sequel thereto by the accused under memo Ex.PW2/B of the location of hiding or keeping of body of deceased Ratti Ram. The learned trial Court has meted the least deference to Ex.PW14/E with vivid articulations occurring therein of Ex.E/4 (Ex.P-27), A Single Barrel Breech Loading gun constituting the weapon wherefrom cartridge Ex.E/5 stood fired also it has belittled the significance of the expert concerned therewithin opining of traces of gun shot residue standing borne on the holes present on Exts. E/9a (a piece of cloth), E/9b (shirt), E/9c (pant), E/9d (Sweater), E/9e (T-shirt) and 3/9g (underwear). E/9a (a piece of cloth), E/9b (shirt), E/9c (pant), E/9d (Sweater), E/9e (T-shirt) and 3/9g (underwear). All the aforesaid pronouncements occurring in Ex.PW14/E graphically evince therefrom qua the relevant weapon of offence standing used by the accused for firing therefrom cartridge Ex.E/5 also with a loud articulation occurring there-within qua the relevant clothes as sent to it for analysis holding gun shot residue within the holes existing thereon, does imminently cumulatively alongwith the factum of the relevant cartridge standing evidently fired from the relevant weapon of offence, portray qua its penetrating the portion of the body of deceased through clothes, Exts. E/9a (a piece of cloth), E/9b (shirt), E/9c (pant), E/9d (Sweater), E/9e (T-shirt) and 3/9g (underwear) whereon holes with gun shot residue stand opined to occur. With firm connectivity emanating qua hence the user of the relevant weapon of offence by the accused, it ought not to have entailed any inference as untenably drawn by the learned trial Court qua the recovery of empty cartridge P-23 under memo Ex.PW2/F holding no efficacy given its standing recovered from an open almirah wherefrom an inference stood untenably drawn by it qua its standing planted thereon by the Investigating Officer also its concluding qua the incriminatory role of accused Lekh Ram in the offences alleged qua whom Ex.P-27 stood issued and from whose house an empty cartridge Ex.P-23 stood recovered under recovery memo Ex.PW2/F being not cogently evincible obviously suffers from gross error of mis-appreciation by it of relevant germane evidence. 13. 13. Be that as it may with absolute concurrence rather stark alignments occurring vis-a-vis the pronouncements made by PW-7 in Ex.PW7/B on his subjecting the body of deceased to postmortem examination qua his noticing occurrence thereon of pellet wounds vis-a-vis the report of the FSL comprised in Ex.PW14/E wherefrom for reasons aforesaid it stands concluded qua the user of the relevant weapon of offence standing connected with the fatal wounds occurring on the body of the deceased wherefrom the apt ensuing sequel is of with the accused not making any endeavour to while subjecting the prosecution witnesses to cross-examination put apposite suggestions to them qua the Investigating Officer removing the relevant weapon of offence from the premises of its licence holder, whereupon on affirmative responses thereto emanating from them where-within bespeakings stand encapsulated qua the Investigating Officer engineering the recovery of Ex.P27, contrarily evident absence of concert thereof by the defence nails a firm conclusion qua its licence holder also being amenable along with other co-accused for fastening an incriminatory role vis-a-vis its vicarious user by him. 14. The up shot of the above conclusion is of the postmortem report Ex.PW7/B and the report of the FSL Ex.PW 14/E constituting the best scientific evidence in emphatically sustaining the user of gun Ex.P-27 by the accused, also the exhibits aforesaid alone constituting the crucial pivotal link for sustaining the guilt of the accused. In sequel, with the aforesaid exhibits alone constituting formidable scientific evidence, they solitarily were enjoined to be meted deference by the learned trial Court. More so, when they vividly pronounce qua the incriminatory role of the accused, their respective credibility besides their vigour stands untenably undermined by the learned trial Court on mere purported inefficacy gripping the disclosure statements of the accused comprised in Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW15/C, in sequel whereof they identified the place of its concealment and keeping under Ex.PW2/B, infirmities whereof as delineated by it in its judgment to be embodying them do not withstand the test of incisive scanning of the respective testifications of the relevant witnesses to the apt memos also do not withstand the rigor of application thereon of the relevant principles engrafted in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act besides of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Conspicuously, when the identification of the place of recovery of the body of deceased at the instance of the accused was exclusively within their knowledge besides when its recovery at their instance under memo Ex.PW2/B alone held efficacy whereas with the learned trial Court untenably holding of the Investigating Officer prior to the accused making the disclosure statements, whereafter they identified the body of the deceased, his holding knowledge qua the place of its keeping and hiding, has hence desanctified their solemnity whereby it has committed a gross mis-appreciation of their relevant import. Even if, some of the links in the chain of circumstances may assumingly remain unproven by clinching evidence thereto remaining un-adduced by the prosecution, nonetheless, when the relevant links are merely incidental or fringe links vis-avis the predominant links constituted in Ex.PW7/B (postmortem report) and Ex.PW14/E (report of the FSL), exhibits whereof conclusively connect the guilt of the accused in the commission of offences alleged, the mere non proof of fringe links would not erode the sanctity of the aforesaid exhibits, significantly when they constitute best potent links besides when it is not a thumb rule of inflexible applicability of with fringe links remaining unproved it hence eroding the efficacy of proof by unflinching evidence of predominant potent links. 15. With accused Lekh Ram holding licence of the gun also with his incriminatory role standing unflinchingly proven besides with co-accused Satish and Rajiv identifying the location of body of the deceased whereat it stood concealed or kept by them whereupon the aforesaid evidently hold a vicarious incriminatory role intra se each other besides with co-accused Lekh Ram also preponderantly when both accused Rajiv and Satish Kumar do not in their defence propagate qua theirs not joining their intra se company at the relevant time when a fatal gun shot wound stood fired from the licenced arm of co-accused Lekh Ram imperatively hence it is to be reinforcingly concluded qua all the accused joining their intra se company at the site of occurrence wherefrom also an inference is marshable qua at the relevant site of occurrence each of the relevant accused standing infused with a conjointly premeditated mensrea with the relevant accused who fired fatal gun shot wound at deceased Ratti Ram. Even if assumingly, the apposite gun shot stood fired by only one of the accused, it would not exculpate the incriminatory role of other co-accused in the relevant occurrence, significantly, when the incriminatory role of all co-accused stand hinged upon theirs holding a vicarious premeditated mensrea vis-a-vis intra se each other respectively, factum whereof is evincible from theirs holding the company of the relevant accused while his standing armed with a fatal weapon also when no defence stands espoused by them qua theirs dissuading the relevant accused in his proceeding to fire the fatal gun shot wound at deceased Ratti Ram. Consequently, it is held that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court suffers from a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 17. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and the accused/respondents are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 25-27 of the Indian Arms Act. Consequently, they be produced before this Court on 22nd September, 2016 for hearing them on quantum of sentence.