JUDGMENT : Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.8.2008 of the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 23/2008, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced appellant Kalyanmal @ Lala and co-accused Heera Lal for the offences u/s 120-B, 302 and 201 IPC, as follows : U/s 120-B IPC - Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment, to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. U/s 302 IPC - Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment, to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. U/s 201 IPC - Three years' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellant Kalyanmal @ Lala and co-appellant Heera Lal were tried together by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Tonk. Learned trial court, vide impugned judgment dated 2.8.2008, convicted and sentenced both – Kalyanmal @ Lala and Heera Lal in the matter as indicated above. Aggrieved thereby, both have filed the present common appeal. 3. During hearing of the appeal on 27.11.2015, it was informed that co-appellant Heera Lal is absconding, whereupon, this court issued direction for his arrest. On 28.3.2016, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that vigorous efforts are being made to apprehend Heera Lal but he is still at large. Learned counsel for the appellant Kalyanmal @ Lala submit that the appellant has undergone actual sentence for more than 8 years and prayed that appeal of Kalyanmal @ Lala be segregated from the case of Heera Lal and appeal itself be listed for hearing. In these circumstances, it was directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural to continue with his efforts to apprehend Heera Lal and also directed the Registry to list appeal of accused Kalyanmal for final hearing and disposal, taking the period undergone by him as the bench mark. Thus, on segregating the appeal from the case of co-appellant Heera Lal, we have heard this appeal qua appellant Kalyanmal @ Lala only. 4. Thus, on segregating the appeal from the case of co-appellant Heera Lal, we have heard this appeal qua appellant Kalyanmal @ Lala only. 4. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 2.4.2006 at about 10.30 AM, a telephonic message was received from one Suraj Karan S/o Shri Jawahar R/o Malikpur at Police Station Pachewar, District Tonk, with regard to a dead body lying in the pipe under a bridge at Malikpur Road, SHO Chaina Ram (PW-40), Police Station Pachewar, proceeded to the spot. He found in a pipe under the bridge a dead body of unknown person lying in a pool of blood. Head was inside the pipe and legs were towards the outside. The dead body was taken out. The deceased was found wearing Kurta and Payjama of white colour. Jooti (shoes) was worn in left leg but the shoe of right leg was lying outside the pipe. Neck of the deceased was cut from both the sides. Abrasions on left side of chest and arm were found. It revealed that the unknown person was murdered by some sharp edged weapon at some other place and to conceal the offence, the dead body was hidden in the pipe under the bridge. The dead body seemed to be 3-4 days old. SHO, Shri Chaina Ram (PW-40) drew a parcha (Ex. P-46) and sent it to the police station for registration of FIR u/s 302 and 201 IPC and proceeded to investigate the case. FIR No. 15/2006 (Ex.P-53) was registered at 12.50 PM at Police Station Pachewar. Memo of site inspection (Ex.P-1) was prepared in the presence of Suraj Karan (PW-1) and Ummed Singh (PW-2). Samples of blood smeared soil from bridge & road and control soil were collected, marked and sealed. Seizure memo (Ex.P-2) was prepared. A pair of Jooti (shoes) and hair sticked on one Jooti were collected, seized and sealed vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3). Foot prints of two unknown persons were found on the spot, moulds whereof were taken and sealed vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4). Inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased (Ex.P-5) was prepared. Belongings of the deceased – Kurta, Payjama, one metallic finger ring and Rs. 25/- cash were seized and sealed vide memo (Ex.P-6). Postmortem of the dead body was conducted. Photographs of the spot were taken. Funeral of the dead body was conducted. Inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased (Ex.P-5) was prepared. Belongings of the deceased – Kurta, Payjama, one metallic finger ring and Rs. 25/- cash were seized and sealed vide memo (Ex.P-6). Postmortem of the dead body was conducted. Photographs of the spot were taken. Funeral of the dead body was conducted. During investigation, the deceased was identified by his brothers - Shrawan (PW-4) and Kanhaiya Lal (PW-15) as Kailash S/o Shri Chouth Mal Sharma R/o Doongari Hingonia, P.S. Jobner. Missing Person Report dated 8.4.2006 with regard to the deceased Kailash was obtained from Police Station, Jobner. 5. Investigation revealed that the deceased Kailash was unmarried and living with his mother Chhagni (PW-6). His brothers were living separately. Deceased had received Rs.28,00,000/- on selling his land. He constructed a house for living and purchased some other land from rest of the amount in last January and February. He brought Rs.2,00,000/- from Pawan Kumar (PW-36). Deceased was very close to accused Kalyanmal. Call details of accused Kalyanmal were obtained. Accused Kalyanmal and co-accused Heera Lal were arrested. On information u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, given by accused Kalyanmal, pieces of unburnt diary were seized. Places visited by both the accused, just prior to committing the offence, weapon - knife, one Thela (bag) one Identity Card, Rs. 99,600/- cash, a mobile handset, one blood stained pant, blood stained shirt, a pair of shoes and a motorcycle were recovered and seized vide memo (Ex.P-21) from the residence of the accused Kalyanmal. All the articles were marked and sealed co-accused Heera Lal was got medically examined as he was having injury on his finger at the time of arrest. Blood test to ascertain the grouping for RH factor, was conducted of both the accused. Pursuant to the information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, given by the accused Heera Lal, weapon of offence, a mobile handset, a Polly bag containing Rs.49,500/- cash, a motorcycle, a blood stained pant and shirt and a pair of shoes were recovered and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-23). Call details of cell number of both the accused were obtained from service provider companies. Sealed articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Call details of cell number of both the accused were obtained from service provider companies. Sealed articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against both the accused before Judicial Magistrate, Malpura, who committed the case for trial to the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases, Tonk. 6. Learned trial court levelled charges for offence u/s 120-B, 302, 302/120-B and 201 IPC on 25.8.2006 against the accused appellants. The accused appellants denied the same and claimed trial. In all, 41 witnesses were examined and 65 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The accused appellants were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Three witnesses were examined in defence by the accused appellants. The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence, observed vide judgment dated 2.8.2008 that the accused appellants in furtherance of conspiracy committed murder of Kailash and hidden the dead body of Kailash. Accordingly, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. 7. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submit that the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. One of the circumstances is that the deceased Kailash was last seen alive with the accused Kalyanmal. Gopi (PW-12), Kanhaiya Lal (PW-15), Kaluram Sharma (PW-16), Ramesh (PW-20) and Anita Sharma (PW-24) were examined for this purpose. Kanhaiyalal (PW-15), Kaluram Sharma (PW-16) and Anita (PW-24) have not supported the prosecution and turned hostile. Ramesh (PW-20) has stated that he saw the deceased with accused Kalyanmal on 31.6.2006 at 8.00 AM. Gopi (PW-12) was driver of brother of the deceased. He stated that Kailash alighted from his truck near Police Station Jobner where shop of his brother is situated. It is argued that as per statement of Gopi (PW-12), most probably, the deceased was at the shop of his brother just before his death and not with the accused. While relying on Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of T.N., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2435 , learned counsel for the appellants submits that principle of last seen comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused, being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Here in the instant case, date of death of Kailash is not known. Witnesses examined are not certain as to how many days prior to his death, they saw the deceased alive. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the fact of recoveries at the instance of the accused is said to be an other circumstance against the accused. Gopi (PW-12) and Ram Prashad (PW-13) are alleged to be attesting witnesses of seizure made vide memo (Ex. P-21) at the instance of the accused Kalyanmal. Neither of them is independent witness. Gopi (PW-12) was driver of the truck of brother of the deceased, whereas Ram Prashad (PW-13) is cousin of deceased and belongs to a village distant from the places of seizure. Recoveries have not been proved by the independent witnesses and seems to be planted by the Investigating officer. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh – (1997) 10 SCC 675 , wherein it was observed following as the conditions prescribed in section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should be satisfied for unwrapping the cover of ban against admissibility of statement of accused to police :- (1) a fact should have been discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused; (2) he should have been accused of an offence; (3) he should have been in the custody of a police officer when he supplied the information; (4) the fact so discovered should have been deposed to by the witness. The Court observed that if these conditions are satisfied, that part of the information given by the accused which led to such recovery gets denuded of the wrapper of prohibition and it becomes admissible in evidence. Since all these conditions are not being fulfilled by the prosecution in the present case, recoveries, made herein, are not admissible in evidence. 9. The prosecution story is that the accused took the deceased with him in the guise of getting married and robbed him – could not be substantiated by any evidence. On the contrary, Smt. Chhagni (PW-6), mother of the deceased, has stated that accused Kalyanmal and the deceased were having cordial relations. On death of Kailash, his property would devolve upon his brothers and their off springs. On the contrary, Smt. Chhagni (PW-6), mother of the deceased, has stated that accused Kalyanmal and the deceased were having cordial relations. On death of Kailash, his property would devolve upon his brothers and their off springs. It is clear from the statement of Smt. Chhagni (PW-6) that only persons to be benefited from the death of Kailash were his own brothers and not the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive on part of the accused, which could have driven the accused to murder their friend i.e. Kailash. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submit that none of the prosecution witnesses has testified that accused murdered Kailash in order to obtain the money which he was carrying at the material point of time. Smt. Chhagni (PW-6) is mother of Kailash, living with him, deposed that the deceased used to share every thing with her. If the deceased was going along with accused to see someone for marriage, he would have certainly told her about it but without telling anything, he left his home. Moreover, it has also not been proved that the money recovered at the instance of accused was the same, which the deceased was carrying. Inability of prosecution to prove the motive is a material lacuna. Missing of any link in the chain of circumstances amounts to failure of the prosecution case and benefit of it must go to the accused. 11. While referring to Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati etc. v. Chhatrasingh and Others - reported in AIR 1977 SC 1753 , the learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if it is accepted that the blood stained shirt and pant were seized at the instance of accused from his house, yet this circumstance ipso facto is not sufficient for sustaining the charge of murder. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submit that as per testimony of Mujahid Ali (PW-33), a lab technician, he took samples of blood of accused Kalyanmal for examining the RH factor on the advice of Dr. O.P. Jain, but the prosecution failed to examine Dr. O.P. Jain, authority competent to take the samples of the blood. In addition, much reliance by prosecution and the learned trial court on FSL report is wrong in the eye of law, as the report of FSL has not been exhibited and not duly proved. 13. O.P. Jain, but the prosecution failed to examine Dr. O.P. Jain, authority competent to take the samples of the blood. In addition, much reliance by prosecution and the learned trial court on FSL report is wrong in the eye of law, as the report of FSL has not been exhibited and not duly proved. 13. The documents relating to mobile location and call details of the cellphone of the accused have not been issued by proper and competent authority in accordance with section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Mohinder Pal Singh (PW-32) has been examined for the purpose. He admits that there was some over writing on Ex. P-39, which was not in original document. Place of presence of accused as per Ex.P-39 is Malpura, whereas the place from where the dead body was found is a bridge over canal between Balapura and Malikpur. Both these places are 21 Kms. away from each other. This proves absence of the accused at the place where dead body was found on the material point of time. As per statement of Mohinder Pal Singh (PW-32), no outgoing call was made between 31.3.2006 to 5.4.2006 from the mobile of Kalyanmal. Therefore, it is not proved that both the accused were in contact and were planning/conspiring to murder the deceased. 14. It is alleged that article 8, knife was used to murder the deceased but this article was not exhibited to Dr. Mahendra Kumar Sanwariya (PW-5) and he was not asked whether this knife could inflict the wounds found on neck of the deceased. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that moulds of footwear print were not taken under supervision of the Magistrate, as required by the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. 16. As per postmortem report (Ex.P-19), time of death was 24-72 hours prior to the postmortem. In such situation, how was it possible that the foot prints remained intact at such dry open place where so many people assembled and jostled around. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that in Sunder and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 (2) RLW 1296 (Raj.), it has been laid down the guidelines as to what precautions should be observed and how a fact of taking moulds of foot prints can be substantiated. In the instant case, all those guidelines have been observed in breach. 17. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 (2) RLW 1296 (Raj.), it has been laid down the guidelines as to what precautions should be observed and how a fact of taking moulds of foot prints can be substantiated. In the instant case, all those guidelines have been observed in breach. 17. As per prosecution, the dead body could not be identified prior to cremation. The dead body could be identified only on 9.4.2004 when the belongings of the deceased were shown to Kanhaiya Lal Sharma and Shrawan Lal Sharma, brothers of Kailash. This identification is not enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the dead body found was that of deceased Kailash. Therefore, the prosecution has failed also on the material aspect of identification of dead body. 18. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 1929 while referring Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reminded the five principles as regard the proof of a case based on the circumstantial evidence. These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the five circumstances, against the accused. 19. On the other hand, Kanaram (DW-1), Ram Narayan (DW-2) and Sita Ram (DW-3) have been examined on behalf of the accused to substantiate the defence story that the accused Kalyanmal was falsely implicated in this matter and for his release, the police had demanded Rs.2.5 lacs. Kanaram (DW-1) - brother of accused Kalyanmal and Ramnarayan (DW-2) - father-in-law of accused Kalyanmal, arranged Rs.2.5 lacs and handed over to SHO but the SHO did not release the accused. He used Rs.1.5 lacs for implanting false recoveries of cash from both the accused and appropriated rest of Rs.1.00 lac, himself. The learned counsel for the accused submit that the accused have probabled their defence by sufficient evidence which creates doubt about the genuineness of all the recoveries alleged to have been made at the instance of the accused. 20. Ms. Soniya Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has proved all the charges against the appellant beyond doubt. All the links required to be proved in the chain of circumstances have been substantiated from the testimony of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution. 20. Ms. Soniya Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has proved all the charges against the appellant beyond doubt. All the links required to be proved in the chain of circumstances have been substantiated from the testimony of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution. Kalu Ram Sharma (PW-16), Smt. Basanti Devi (PW-17), Ramesh (PW-20) and Anita Sharma (PW-24) have testified that last time prior to the death, deceased Kailash was seen by them in the company of accused Kalyanmal. Ramesh (PW-20) has stated that he saw Kailash on 31.3.2006 at 8.00 AM with accused Kalyanmal. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Sanwariya (PW-5), who conducted the postmortem of the dead body, has opined that duration of death was about 24-72 hours earlier to the date of postmortem i.e. 2.4.2006. Thus, here in the instant matter, there is no time gap between point of time when the accused was last seen with Kailash alive and when the latter was found dead. Time gap of last seen is not so long as to defeat or frustrate the prosecution version. The learned Public Prosecutor referred Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 , on this point. 21. It is argued that the attesting witnesses are independent and they have corroborated the recoveries made at the instance of both the accused. Chainaram (PW-40), has been cross-examined at length but nothing has come out so as to disbelieve the recoveries made at the instance of the accused. Moreover, the Apex Court in Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and Another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 has held that "mere absence of independent witnesses when the investigating officer recorded the statement of the accused and the article was recovered pursuant thereto, is not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence of the police officer relating to recovery at the instance of the accused". 22. Learned public Prosecutor argued that as per FSL report, shirt recovered at the instance of the accused Kalyanmal, was having human blood stains of 'AB' group. Payjama and Kurta of the deceased have been found stained with human blood of 'AB' group. The blood group of the accused is 'A' positive. On examination of prints of soles of footwear recovered at the instance of accused were found similar to the print impression of sole of foot wear, lifted from the scene of the crime. Payjama and Kurta of the deceased have been found stained with human blood of 'AB' group. The blood group of the accused is 'A' positive. On examination of prints of soles of footwear recovered at the instance of accused were found similar to the print impression of sole of foot wear, lifted from the scene of the crime. Though constable Ratan Lal, who took the sealed packets from Malkhana of the police station to the Forensic Science Laboratory, could not be examined due to his death, yet the receipt available on FSL report confirms that sealed packets were received by the FSL, intact. The accused have not given any explanation about the blood stains of blood group 'AB' on his shirt. He has also not explained how the print impressions of footwear found on the place of crime are matching with those of soles of the shoes recovered from his house at his own instance. Relying upon Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 and Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 14 SCC 401 , the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has proved the entire chain of circumstances against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts which unerringly point to the guilt of the accused appellant and none else. 23. The inquest memo of the dead body (Ex.P-5), seizure memo of belongings of the deceased (Ex.P-6), photographs of the dead body (Ex. P-27) and (Ex.P-28) on the one hand, and ocular testimony of Sharwan (PW-14) and Kanhaiya Lal (PW-15) - brothers of the deceased on the other hand, are sufficiently proving that the dead body found on 2.4.2006 was that of Kailash. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this fact. 24. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the information regarding tower location and call details of cellphones of both the accused persons confirm that both of them were constantly in touch with each other. Badri Lal (PW-25) proved that co-accused Heera Lal had a talk with accused Kalyanmal through his cellphone. Thus, the charge of conspiracy is proved. The recovery of money at the instance of accused persons overwhelmingly points out the motive of the accused. Badri Lal (PW-25) proved that co-accused Heera Lal had a talk with accused Kalyanmal through his cellphone. Thus, the charge of conspiracy is proved. The recovery of money at the instance of accused persons overwhelmingly points out the motive of the accused. The FSL report is admissible in evidence u/s 293 Cr.P.C. The incriminating contents of the same have been put by way of question to the accused while examining him u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Mere non-exhibition of these reports has no adverse consequence qua prosecution. 25. We have given our thoughtful consideration on rival submissions and gone through the whole material available on record. 26. Admittedly, the instant prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down five principles as regard the proof of a case based on the circumstantial evidence. The same principles have been reiterated time and again and they are :- 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. We will appreciate and discuss the evidence in light of above five "Panchsheel" laid down by the Supreme court. 27. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence has observed that both the accused have, in a planned manner, conspired to take the deceased Kailash with accused Kalyanmal and committed his murder. We will appreciate and discuss the evidence in light of above five "Panchsheel" laid down by the Supreme court. 27. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence has observed that both the accused have, in a planned manner, conspired to take the deceased Kailash with accused Kalyanmal and committed his murder. Following incriminating circumstances against the accused have weighed with the trial court to convict them:- (i) relation of faith between accused Kalyanmal and deceased Kailash; (ii) object of getting money from the deceased who was unmarried and financially strong, whereas the accused persons were financially weak; (iii) prior to death, accused Kalyanmal was last seen with deceased Kailash; (iv) similarity of print impressions of foot were of both the accused persons with those found and lifted in mould on the spot; (v) the blood group found on the clothes of the accused persons, which was also the blood group of the deceased; (vi) recovery of weapons of offence on the basis of information given by the accused persons; (vii) recovery of money on the basis of information given by the accused persons; (viii) both the accused persons were in constant contact through mobile phones with each other prior to committing the offence; (ix) co-accused Heera Lal having injury on his finger from the recovered and seized weapon used by him; (x) despite accused Kalyanmal having thick relations with the deceased, on his missing, he did not contact and inquired about him from the relatives of the deceased. First of all, we will discuss the evidence adduced with regard to last seen. 28. Ramesh (PW-20) deposed in his evidence that deceased Kailash of his community was known to him. Accused Kalyanmal was also known to him, as he used to come to Jobner to supply milk. On several occasions, he used to come with deceased Kailash. He saw Kailash on the last occasion on 31.3.2006 at 8.00 AM with accused Kalyanmal. Accused Kalyanmal was driving motorcycle and deceased was pillion rider. Thereafter, he did never see Kailash alive. Smt. Chhagni (PW-6), mother of the deceased, has deposed that deceased Kailash was the youngest son among her four sons and was living with her. He was unmarried. They had sold their land and started living in the house in village. Accused Kalyanmal is known to her, who was living rented room in the house of Jagdish Khati. Smt. Chhagni (PW-6), mother of the deceased, has deposed that deceased Kailash was the youngest son among her four sons and was living with her. He was unmarried. They had sold their land and started living in the house in village. Accused Kalyanmal is known to her, who was living rented room in the house of Jagdish Khati. Kailash and accused Kalyanmal had cordial relations. Deceased Kailash was not knowing how to drive a vehicle. Accused Kalyanmal used to take him on his motorcycle. Her son Kailash went in the morning of Gangaur Sinjara (a local festival) day and never returned. Search was made for three days. Only after 8-10 days it was known that Kailash had been murdered by someone near Malpura. When he left, he was wearing white shirt of half sleeves, Payjama and leather shoes. In cross-examination, she stated that there was no enmity between accused Kalyanmal and deceased Kailash, rather they were having very cordial relationship. Earlier also, deceased Kailash used to go out, but would come back in the evening. He used to go outside after informing her, but on that day, he did not say anything to her. After the death of Kailash, the property will devolve upon her and her other sons and their offspring. 29. Gopi (PW-12) is driver of Sharwan Lal, a brother of the deceased Kailash. He deposed in the court that he was driver on the truck of Sharwan Lal. On the day of Gangaur Sinjara, when he was going to bring freight of sand (bajri), Kailash joined him. He was wearing white shirt, Payajama and leather shoes. He was having a thela (bag) as well. Sevaram, his wife and children were also boarded on truck. Gopi (PW-12) further deposed that he got filled in diesel at Jobner. Kailash alighted there near Police Station, nearby which a shop of his brother is situated. After a month, he heard that Kailash was murdered at Pachewar side. Sevaram (PW-7) has corroborated the evidence rendered by Gopi (PW-12). 30. Kalu Ram Sharma (PW-16), Smt. Basanti Devi (PW-17) and Anita Sharma (PW 24) have been examined to prove that on 31.3.2006, accused Kalyanmal together with deceased Kailash visited their house at Malpura, but these three witnesses have turned hostile. 31. The evidence rendered by Smt. Chhagni (PW-6), Sevaram (PW-7). Sevaram (PW-7) has corroborated the evidence rendered by Gopi (PW-12). 30. Kalu Ram Sharma (PW-16), Smt. Basanti Devi (PW-17) and Anita Sharma (PW 24) have been examined to prove that on 31.3.2006, accused Kalyanmal together with deceased Kailash visited their house at Malpura, but these three witnesses have turned hostile. 31. The evidence rendered by Smt. Chhagni (PW-6), Sevaram (PW-7). Gopi (PW-12) and Ramesh (PW-20) clearly establish that on Gangaur Sinjara's day, deceased Kailash went Jobner without telling anything to his mother by a truck driven by Gopi (PW-12). On 31.3.2006, he was last seen alive by Ramesh (PW-20) and at that time the accused Kalyanmal was with him on motorcycle. As per written report (Ex.P-46), the dead body of Kailash was found on 2.4.2006. As per postmortem report (Ex.P-19), his death had taken place around 24 hours to 72 hours prior to postmortem. Thus, the death of Kailash might have been occurred in between 31.3.2006 and 1.4.2006. We find that duration between Kailash last seen alive by Ramesh (PW-20) and actual time of death of Kailash, not a long one. Gopi (PW-12) had dropped Kailash nearby Police Station Jobner near which there was a shop of brothers of Kailash. However, Gopi (PW-12) has not said that he saw Kailash going to the shop of his brothers. On the other hand, Ramesh (PW-20), in clear words, states that in Jobner itself, he saw Kailash alive together with accused Kalyanmal on 31.3.2006 at 8.00 AM. We find no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the deceased was last seen alive with his brothers on their shop. 32. It is admitted fact that Gopi (PW-12) was driver of Sharwan, brother of the deceased. It is also admitted that Ram Prashad (PW-13) belongs to Rampura which is 70 Kms. away from Hingonia, the village of the deceased. It is established law that merely on the ground that witnesses are interested, their testimony cannot be thrown away live, stock and barrel. However, their evidence is to be appreciated with due diligence and extra caution. 33. Chena Ram (PW-40), is an Investigating Officer. The alleged recoveries have been made by this witness at the instance of the accused person, in presence of Gopi (PW-12) and Ram Prashad (PW-13). Gopi (PW-12) and Ram Prashad (PW-13) have fully corroborated the version of Chena Ram (PW-40) on this point. 33. Chena Ram (PW-40), is an Investigating Officer. The alleged recoveries have been made by this witness at the instance of the accused person, in presence of Gopi (PW-12) and Ram Prashad (PW-13). Gopi (PW-12) and Ram Prashad (PW-13) have fully corroborated the version of Chena Ram (PW-40) on this point. Despite of a long cross-examination, both of them have not shaken from their statements made in examination-in-chief. Chena Ram (PW-40) has stated that during custody, accused Kalyanmal gave him information that the knife used as weapon of offence, a Thela (bag) containing money, Identity Card of the deceased, a mobile handset, shirt, pant, shoes and a motorcycle are lying at his house and he wants to get them recovered. The information was recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, vide memo (Ex.P-51), whereupon signatures of accused Kalyanmal is at "C to D". Accordingly, he went to the Police Station Jobner, leaving co-accused Heera Lal in custody there, he proceeded along with accused Kalyanmal to village Doongari Hingonia. The accused took him to his room, which was locked. Photographer was called. Photography was get done. Photos and negatives are Ex.P-27 and Ex. P-28. The accused Kalyanmal broke the lock and entered into his room in presence of witnesses and took out all the things mentioned in Ex. P-51 from his room, whereupon, the witness (Chena Ram) placed the knife, Thela (bag) containing cash, Identity Card, mobile handset, shirt, pant and a pair of shoes in separate cloth bags and sealed and marked them. So also prepared a memo of seizure (Ex.P-21). Site map of the place of recovery (Ex.P-22) was also prepared. Thereafter, he took all the recovered material to the Police Station Jobner. He left the recovered material and the accused Kalyanmal at Police Station. Thereafter, co-accused Heera Lal took him to his residential house at village Bhojpura Kalan, wherefrom, he recovered certain articles at the instance of co-accused Heera Lal and returned to the Police Station Jobner. Therefrom, he took all the articles recovered at the instance of both the accused to the Police Station Pachewar and deposited them in Malkhana. 34. Jagdish Prasad (PW-18) has stated that he had let out a room of his house situated at village Hingania to accused Kalyanmal just three months prior to the death of Kailash. Besides Kalyanmal, his wife and two daughters were also living therein. 34. Jagdish Prasad (PW-18) has stated that he had let out a room of his house situated at village Hingania to accused Kalyanmal just three months prior to the death of Kailash. Besides Kalyanmal, his wife and two daughters were also living therein. At the time when police brought the accused Kalyanmal, the room was locked and in possession of Kalyanmal. He had given a certificate (Ex.P-26) about letting out the room to Kalyanmal. Nand Lal (PW 39), Sarpanch, has stated that he had attested the certificate (Ex.P-26) issued by Jagdish (PW-18). 35. On perusal of evidence rendered by Gopi (PW-12), Ram Prasad (PW-13) and Chena Ram (PW-40), it reveals that firstly, there is is no reason, except they being interested, testimony of attesting witnesses – Gopi (PW-12) and Ram Prasad (PW-13) cannot be believed. Secondly, testimony of Chena Ram (PW-40), I.O., is also completely trustworthy. In Govindraju @ Govinda 's case (supra) Supreme Court has held that even single testimony of Investigating Officer, with regard to recoveries, cannot be discarded. Thus, we find the recoveries made, on the instance of accused, stated above, as proved. 36. Chhagni (PW-6), mother of deceased, has stated that Kailash was youngest among her four sons and was living with her. He was unmarried. They had sold their land and started living in the house constructed in village. Kailash and Kalyan had cordial relations. Pawan Kumar (PW-36) has stated that deceased Kailash was his maternal uncle. Kailash had sold land about one and quarter year prior to his death in about Rs.One Crore and Five lac. This amount was shared by all four maternal uncles. Kailash, Radheyshyam and Shrawan left twenty lacs rupees each with this witness. They used to take away from time to time an amount from this witness as per their need. Date 11.2.2006 was last occasion when Kailash took Rs.2 lacs from him. Gopi (PW-12) has stated that when he dropped Kailash near Police Station at Jobner on the day of Gangaur Sinjara, Kailash was having a thela (bag) in his hand. From the statements of Gopi (PW-12), Ram Prasad (PW-13) and Chena Ram (PW-40), it has established that on the instance of accused Kalyanmal, a thela (bag) was recovered from his possession, containing Rs.99,600/-. From this evidence, motive behind committing murder has come out to be the money. 37. From the statements of Gopi (PW-12), Ram Prasad (PW-13) and Chena Ram (PW-40), it has established that on the instance of accused Kalyanmal, a thela (bag) was recovered from his possession, containing Rs.99,600/-. From this evidence, motive behind committing murder has come out to be the money. 37. Kanaram (DW-1), Ram Narayan (DW-2) and Sita Ram (DW-3) have been examined on behalf of the accused to substantiate the defence story that the accused Kalyanmal was falsely implicated in this matter and for his release, the police had demanded Rs.2.5 lacs. Kanaram (DW-1) - brother of accused Kalyanmal and Ramnarayan (DW-2) - father-in-law of accused Kalyanmal, arranged Rs.2.5 lacs and handed over to SHO but the SHO did not release the accused. He used Rs.1.5 lacs for implanting false recoveries of cash from both the accused and appropriated rest of Rs.1.00 lac, himself. But the witnesses in their cross examination could not give credible evidence as to from what source they collected such a big amount. The person to whom land was mortgaged, has not been produced. Details of crop sold have not been given. The broker through whom the crop was sold, has also not been examined in evidence. As such, looking to the social and economical back ground of the accused, learned trial court has rightly disbelieved this theory of defence. 38. No other explanation have come forward from accused about the huge amount of Rs.99,600/-, recovered from his house on his own instance. Thus, it is also an incriminating circumstance against the accused. 39. Satyanarayan (PW-41), head constable, has stated that on 2.4.2006, he was Malkhana incharge at Police Station Pachewar. On that day and on 3.5.2006, SHO handed over him sealed packets of blood smeared soil, control soil, mould foot prints, blood stained clothes, etc. He entered the details in Malkhana register, Ex.P-44, Ex.P.45 and Ex.P-46 and kept them intact in the Malkhana. The sealed packets were sent for examination to the FSL. Chena Ram (PW-40) has stated that the sealed packets were taken from Malkhana of the Police Station by constable Ratan Lal and deposited them in sealed condition to the FSL. Ratan Lal has died. The receipt obtained by Ratan Lal is Ex.P-59 and Ex.P-60. On perusal of Ex.P-59 and Ex.P-60, it reveals that the packets deposited by Ratan Lal, constable in FSL, were received in sealed condition by the FSL. Ratan Lal has died. The receipt obtained by Ratan Lal is Ex.P-59 and Ex.P-60. On perusal of Ex.P-59 and Ex.P-60, it reveals that the packets deposited by Ratan Lal, constable in FSL, were received in sealed condition by the FSL. FSL report dated 25.9.2006 with regard to serological examination reveals that Payjama and Kurta found worn by deceased at the time of death were having human blood of 'AB' group. On the other hand, Mujahid Ali (PW-33) has testified that he examined the blood of accused Kalyanmal and found it to be of group 'A positive'. It can be construed from this evidence that the blood of the deceased was found on the shirt of the accused, recovered by police at the instance of accused Kalyanmal. Chaku (knife) recovered at the instance of accused Kalyanmal was also found having human blood but blood group could not be determined in conclusively. As per FSL report dated 10.8.2006, foot wear sole impressions lifted from the site of crime in moulds were found similar in respect of size, shape, design and dimensions to the foot wear sole impression of the shoes of accused appellant recovered by police at his instance. 40. Mujahid Ali (PW-33) is a lab technician, who took sample of blood for blood group on the direction of Incharge, CHC, Dr. O.P. Jain. Non-examination of Dr. O.P. Jain in such a situation has no bearing on the story of the prosecution. Non-examination of constable Ratan Lal, on account of his death, prior to the examination in court, has also no bearance. Ocular evidence of Chena Ram (PW-40) & Satyanarayan (PW-41) and documentary evidence Ex.P-59 & Ex.P-60, the receipts given by FSL are sufficient to prove the fact that the different samples and other material deposited by Chena Ram (PW-40) in Malkhana of the police station were handed over in the same condition to constable Ratan Lal by Malkhana Incharge Satyanarayan, head constable, and the same were deposited by later in intact condition to the FSL. So far as breach of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, while making moulds from the site of the crime is concerned, we do not find any lacuna on this point in the instant matter. As per rule 6.26 (3), prior to taking impression of the foot prints and before making moulds the foot prints found near site of crime must be pointed out to the reliable witness. As per rule 6.26 (3), prior to taking impression of the foot prints and before making moulds the foot prints found near site of crime must be pointed out to the reliable witness. In the instant matter, Suraj Narain (PW-1) and Ummed Singh (PW-2), both have categorically stated in their statement before the court even dimensions and other particulars of the foot print, they saw at site of crime. As per this rule, it is not mandatory that mould should be prepared in variably in the presence of a Magistrate. As per this rule, mould may be prepared in the presence of reliable witnesses as well. There is nothing on record to doubt reliability of Suraj Narayan (PW-1) and Ummed Singh (PW-2). Sunder's case (supra) was factually different, hence, in our opinion, does not lend any help to the defence. 41. As per Ex.P-21, recovery and seizure memo of articles recovered at the instance of the accused Kalyanmal, weapon of offence – knife was recovered having 10 cm long blade and 13 cm long handle. As per postmortem report (Ex.P-19), there is an incised wound 12cm x 2cm x viscera deep at the mid level of neck extending both side, cutting muscle, trachea and large vessels. As per FSL report dated 25.9.2006, the knife was stained with human blood. It is an admitted fact that the knife recovered at the instance of the accused Kalyanmal was not exhibited to Dr. Mahendra Kumar Sanwariya (PW-5) and he was not asked as to whether this knife can inflict wound, which was found on the neck of the dead body. However, in view of the dimensions of wound found on the neck of the dead body as described in the postmortem report and dimensions of the blood stained knife recovered at the instance of the accused Kalyanmal from his residence, in our opinion, mere non-exhibition of the knife and not taking opinion of doctor on it would not diminish the evidentially value of this evidence against the accused. The dimensions of the knife and the wound per se are reflecting a co-relation. 42. Vibhor Rastogi (PW-31) is a Nodal Officer of "Hutch" Mobile Service Provider Company. He has deposed that mobile bearing No. 9828813738 has been issued in the name of co-accused Heera Lal. Mobile No. 9828671610 is in the name of Badri Lal resident of Mehru. The dimensions of the knife and the wound per se are reflecting a co-relation. 42. Vibhor Rastogi (PW-31) is a Nodal Officer of "Hutch" Mobile Service Provider Company. He has deposed that mobile bearing No. 9828813738 has been issued in the name of co-accused Heera Lal. Mobile No. 9828671610 is in the name of Badri Lal resident of Mehru. Mohinder Pal Singh (PW-32) is also a Nodal Officer of "Airtel" Mobile Service Provider Company. He states that Mobile No. 9829257356 has been issued in the name of accused Kalyanmal. Location of this mobile number on 31.3.2006 was Malpura. At 11.36 and 12.37, two calls were received on this mobile from mobile No. 9828671610. Call details is Ex. P-39 and details of consumer is Ex. P-40. 43. In cross examination, Mohinderpal Singh (PW-32) has stated that page No. 1, 2 and 3 of Ex.P-39 are copies printed out from computer and thereupon he put signature and seal of the company and issued it to SHO. There were no handwritten words on Ex. P-39 when he issued it. Presently, Ex.P-39 contain handwritten words which have been mentioned by some one after issuance by the witness. We have perused the Ex.P-39. Whatever words are found in handwriting on it, seems to be marked by IO or other person, just to high light the relevant entries. There is no interpolation or overwriting. 44. In cross examination, Mohinderpal Singh (PW-32) has stated that Ex.P-39 call trace record happens to be feeded in computer. Ex. P-39 is a copy retrieved from computer. He has denied in cross examination that he was not authorised by company to issue copy. He states that all nodal officers of any company are competent to issue copies. It appears that the conditions mentioned in Section 65-B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act are being fulfilled. Witness has issued, under authority of company with his signature and seal of the company, copy of an input regularly feeded in a computer (server). There is nothing on record to disbelieve the document Ex.P-39 and Ex.P-40. 45. Madan Lal (PW-23) has stated that when police brought co-accused Heera Lal at his shop, then he re-collected that he visited a month ago his shop of puncture repairing. He removed a puncture in the tyre of his motorcycle and directed him to nearby tea shop of Ganesh Lal when he wanted to drink water. 45. Madan Lal (PW-23) has stated that when police brought co-accused Heera Lal at his shop, then he re-collected that he visited a month ago his shop of puncture repairing. He removed a puncture in the tyre of his motorcycle and directed him to nearby tea shop of Ganesh Lal when he wanted to drink water. Ganesh Lal (PW-11) has stated that when police brought co-accused Heera Lal at his shop, he also recollected that Heera Lal visited about a month ago to his shop and had a glass of water. When he enquired about STD booth, Ganesh Lal referred him to the nearby STD booth of Badri Lal. Badri Lal (PW-25) stated that when the co-accused Heera Lal was brought by police before him, he recollected that Heera Lal wanted to have a talk whereupon he handed over his own cellphone bearing No. 9828671610 to Heera Lal, who made a call at 11.36 AM. Gopal Kumawat (PW-21), ISD/STD/PCO booth owner of No. 01425250153 has stated that co-accused Heera Lal made a telephone on 31.3.2006 at about 15.15 from his STD booth to a mobile No. 9829257356. The witness submitted printed voucher of the same to the police which is a copy meant for Heera Lal, the consumer, who left the booth without taking this copy with him. 46. It is proved from prosecution evidence, both electronic and ocular, that on 31.3.2006 one call at 11.36 AM, other call at 12.37 and one more call at 15.15 were made on the mobile number of accused Kalyanmal from cellphone of Badri Lal (PW-25) and two from different STD booths. Badri Lal (PW-25) and Gopal (PW-21) have stated that these calls were made by co-accused Heera Lal from their STD booths. Conspiracy cannot be proved by direct evidence but sufficient and cogent evidence is necessary to infer that there was prior meeting of minds of accused persons with regard to commit a crime. In the instant case, the evidence adduced cannot be treated as insufficient to prove that there was prior meeting of minds between the two accused with regard to commit the offence. 47. In the instant case, the evidence adduced cannot be treated as insufficient to prove that there was prior meeting of minds between the two accused with regard to commit the offence. 47. The circumstances proved against appellant Kalyanmal are that he was found in the company of Kailash when he was last seen alive; recovery of blood stained weapon of offence; blood stained clothes; money; similarity of his foot wearing sole impression with the foot wearing sole impressions collected from the site of the crime. Non-explanation by accused about these incriminating circumstances, lead us to believe that there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the trial court that the accused Kalyanmal has committed the offences charged against him. 48. In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2003) 7 SCC 643 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "20 ..... The prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. ----. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some inevitable flaws because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect" The present case is one where there is no trace of doubt that all circumstances complete the chain and singularly lead to the guilt of the accused persons." 49. In the instant case, the prosecution has proved sufficient circumstances against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The facts established, it is found to be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and are excluding every possible hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The chain of evidence is complete and show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused and none else. The five principles i.e. "panchsheel" as regards the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence; prescribed by the Apex Court in Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra), have been found in observance and the proof brought on record by the prosecution irresistantly inspire us to uphold the order of trial court regarding conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. 50. The five principles i.e. "panchsheel" as regards the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence; prescribed by the Apex Court in Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra), have been found in observance and the proof brought on record by the prosecution irresistantly inspire us to uphold the order of trial court regarding conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. 50. In the light of above discussions, there is no reason to interfere with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial court. We are not persuaded with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 51. Consequently, the appeal preferred by appellant Kalyanmal @ Lala fails and is dismissed.