JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. Criminal Appeals No. 1269/2007, 1270/2007 and 1399/2007 have been preferred assailing common judgment and order dated 04.06.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 77/2005, whereby learned trial court convicted accused-appellants Satya Narain @ Sattu, Mangla Ram, Sumer Banta and Dagalnath, for offence under Sections 396 and 201 IPC. For offence under Section 396 IPC, they have been sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, each of them has to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 201 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of fine, each of them has to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Since accused-appellant Suresh Panga in Criminal Appeal No. 816/2016 and two other accused, namely, Govind Beda and Sanjay Budiya, were absconding, the investigation against them was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused-appellant Suresh Panga was arrested on 30.09.2013 and the police filed charge- sheet against accused-appellant Suresh Panga for offence under Sections 302, 201, 396 and 120B of the IPC. Ultimately the trial against him proceeded in the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer, who, vide judgment and order dated 06.06.2016, convicted him for offence under Sections 396, 201 and 302 IPC. For offence under Section 396 IPC, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default in payment of fine, he was to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default in payment of fine, he was to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default in payment of fine, each of them was to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. For offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default in payment of fine, each of them was to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. All these appeals arise out of common First Information Report No. 36/2005 lodged with Police Station Pushkar, District Ajmer, on 23.02.2005, for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, on the basis of written report submitted by one Khamishe Khan to Station House Officer, Police Station Pushkar, stating therein that his brother Ditte Khan used to drive taxi car Qualis vehicle No. RJ-19-T3-3914. On 17.02.2005, he had gone to Jodhpur to drop certain passengers. The informant had a talk with him at about 10:30 PM, who told him that he would come back to Jaisalmer on the next day early in the morning after taking passengers in the taxi vehicle. Thereafter, on the next day the informant again telephoned him at about 9:00 AM, however, the phone was not connected. It was thereafter that the informant received a telephonic message from the Police Station, Jaisalmer, that the said Qualis vehicle was lying unclaimed in the area of Police Station, Amer. After sometime, another message was received that dead body of an unknown person was lying near Pushkar. After that, the informant went to Pushkar, where he was shown photos (Exhibits P-2 and P-3 in Appeal No. 127/2007) and certain clothes of a deceased. Then he learnt that the said dead bodies of his brother Ditte Khan and that he has been murdered by certain unknown persons who threw his body in the bushes of Pushkar valley. 4. The police, after chalking out the F.I.R. for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, commenced investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against accused-appellants Satya Narain @ Sattu, Mangla Ram, Sumer Banta and Dagalnath for offence under Section 302, 201, 396 and 120B IPC and investigation against accused-appellant Suresh Panga and two other accused, namely, Govind Beda and Sanjay Budiya was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed there and thereafter the trial of the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer. In the meantime, accused Sanjay Budiya was arrested and he being a juvenile was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. Upon arrest of accused Govind Beda, the police filed charge-sheet against him and after committal, the court also found him to be a juvenile, therefore, his case was also sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer. The learned trial court concluded the trial against four accused-appellants, namely, Satya Narain @ Sattu, Mangla Ram, Sumer Banta and Dagalnath, and convicted and sentenced them vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.06.2007 in the manner indicated above. After completion of trial, learned trial court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2016 convicted and sentenced accused appellant Suresh Panga in the manner indicated above. 5. The prosecution in the trial against four accused-appellants, namely, Satya Narain @ Sattu, Mangla Ram, Sumer Banta and Dagalnath, produced 41 witnesses and exhibited 103 documents. As against this, the defence produced only one witness and exhibited 23 documents. The trial court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.06.2007, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. The prosecution in the trial against accused-appellant Suresh Panga, examined 25 witnesses and exhibited 120 documents. The defence, though did not produce any witness, but exhibited 10 documents. 6. The first set of appeals was filed by four accused-appellants, namely, Satya Narain @ Sattu, Mangla Ram, Sumer Banta and Dagalnath, against judgment and order dated 04.06.2007. Their sentence not being suspended, they are in jail for last 12 years. The sentence of accused-appellant Suresh Panga in Appeal No. 816/2016 also not suspended and he is in jail for last three years and seven months. 7. The prosecution case is largely based on testimony of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1 in first trial). Harchand @ Harish who was arrested on 20.05.2005 at 4:00 PM vide Exhibit P-26 as accused, even then the police recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 25-05-2005 which is Exhibit D-1, wherein he stated that he along-with other accused persons killed deceased Ditte Khan and that he was part of the crime with other accused, but now he wanted to turn as prosecution witness. On the basis of said statement, the Investigating Officer requested the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, to grant necessary approval. The Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, granted permission on 26.05.2005 vide Exhibit P-94 to Harchand @ Harish to become approver. On the basis of said statement, the Investigating Officer requested the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, to grant necessary approval. The Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, granted permission on 26.05.2005 vide Exhibit P-94 to Harchand @ Harish to become approver. Thereupon, the Investigating Officer submitted an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer for granting pardon to aforesaid Harchand @ Harish under Section 306 Cr.P.C. vide Exhibit P-77 on 08.06.2005. Simultaneously, Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) also submitted an application on 28.07.2005 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Exhibit P-1) for granting him pardon and expressed his willingness to become a prosecution witness. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, decided both the applications vide order dated 01.08.2005 granting pardon to him and making him an approver. Statement of aforesaid Harchand @ Harish was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 10.08.2005. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that in order to provide corroboration to what Harchand @ Harish was made to say, the police has shown certain fake recoveries. Recovery of bushirt and PAN card of the deceased vide Exhibit P-23 is shown to have been made on 31.05.2005 i.e. more than three months after the recovery of dead body of Ditte Khan, which was allegedly thrown away by the accused persons from the running Qualis vehicle. Surprisingly this recovery is shown from a place situated at a distance of one kilometer from there. The memo of recovery shows that recovered articles bu-shirt and PAN card were found in a pocket near the bushes adjacent to a temple. Learned counsel, in this connection, has referred to statements of Smt. Mehra, wife of the deceased, and Khamise Khan, elder brother of the deceased, both of whom have stated that when the deceased left the house, he was wearing a ‘kurta’ and trouser. It is not the case of the prosecution that he was carrying additional clothes. There is nothing on record to show as to from where the bu-shirt came and how and in what circumstances it was concealed adjacent to a temple at a distance of one kilometer away from where the dead body of the deceased was found. Apparently, this recovery is result of fabrication by the police only with a view to providing corroboration to what has been stated by Harchand @ Harish (PW-1). 9. Apparently, this recovery is result of fabrication by the police only with a view to providing corroboration to what has been stated by Harchand @ Harish (PW-1). 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that testimony of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) is not at all reliable and cannot be made basis for conviction of accused-appellants for the reason that it does not get any corroboration from any other evidence produced by the prosecution and suffers from enormous contradictions. This witness failed to get sufficient corroboration and was afflicted by lot of contradictions. Learned counsel invited attention towards his examination in chief where he stated that he was a carpenter and was working in the factory along-with his friend Govind, who invited him to the wedding of his friend. To attend that marriage, he along-with Govind reached at the Railway Station, Jodhpur. This witness found six persons already present there, who were – Satyanarain, Sanjay Budia, Mangla, Suresh, Sumer, Dagalnath. Satyanarain asked him to sell his mobile because they were in need of money for the purpose of travelling to marriage. Satyanarain took his mobile and gave the same to Sanjay and Suresh, both of whom went on motorcycle to sell the same and returned back having sold the mobile phone for a sum of Rs. 2000/- and gave this money to Satyanarain. This witness further alleged that Satyanarain sent Sanjay and Suresh to his own room and get some luggage (bags and suitcase), which they did. The Investigating Officer has neither recovered the mobile of approver, which was allegedly sold by Satyanarain nor recovered the luggage, which is said to have brought by Sanjay and Suresh. There is absolutely no evidence as to conspiracy allegedly hatched by the accused to support the charge of Section 120-B of the IPC. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to statement of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1), further argued that this witness at later stage stated that when all the accused persons came inside the railway station, they took round of the railway platform and then came out so that they could pose themselves as genuine travellers. Satyanarain thereafter went to hire a taxi and then he brought the Qualis vehicle driven by the deceased. Satyanarain thereafter went to hire a taxi and then he brought the Qualis vehicle driven by the deceased. This part of the statement of Harchand @ Harish is in contradiction with what has been stated by Sawan Khan (PW-41), another taxi driver who stated that when he was waiting for passengers, 7-8 persons came there with luggage and asked him (Sawan Khan) to take them in his taxi to, Mertacity, where they had to attend wedding. Sawan Khan (PW-41) further stated that these persons then approached Ditte Khan, who was also standing there with Qualis vehicle and Ditten Khan agreed to. Thus take them in his taxi all of them boarded in his Qualis vehicle with their luggage. The story disclosed by Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) that Satyanarain alone went to hire taxi at bus stand, is thus not corroborated by the version given by Sawan Khan (PW-41). 11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the allegation of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) that during the journey Satyanarain got the mobile number of the deceased (driver of taxi) and added the same to the directory of his cell phone and vice versa, is not correct because the said mobile phone of Satyanarain has not been recovered to substantiate whether at all he stored the number of the deceased therein. This witness has alleged that Satyanarain and Sanjay put their belts on the neck of the deceased and tightened the same, as a result of which the belts were broken into two pieces, whereas from the dead body of Ditte Khan which was recovered from the bushes of Pushkar valley and the photographs of which are on record becomes evidently clear that he was having a muffler around his neck. The alleged broken pieces of belt have not been recovered. The postmortem report (Exhibit P-7), which has been proved by Dr. Bhagwati Prasad (PW-8), does not give any definite cause of death. All what has been opined is that the cause of death would be given after receiving the chemical analysis report of viscera and blood, which were preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned police person. The postmortem report (Exhibit P-7), which has been proved by Dr. Bhagwati Prasad (PW-8), does not give any definite cause of death. All what has been opined is that the cause of death would be given after receiving the chemical analysis report of viscera and blood, which were preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned police person. The result of examination stated in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit P-8) is that on chemical examination, portion of viscera (1-7) and blood (8) from three packets marked ‘nil’ gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides. Otherwise also the injuries sustained by the deceased were six in number, which are mostly superficial in the nature of bruises. Allegation of the prosecution that the belt was used to strangulate the deceased, is not therefore substantiated. Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) in this respect, has alleged that Sanjay who was sitting on the rear seat covered the face of the deceased with a shawl from behind. Satyanarain then strangulated his neck and Govind caught hold of his hands. Accused Suresh caused injuries to his private parts by 3-4 kicks. Thereafter Govind and Sanjay searched his clothes. They found two mobile hand sets, currency notes of Rs. 6000/- in the denomination of Rs. 1000/- each and one wrist watch. All these items were taken possession of by Satyanarain. Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) then stated that Satyanarain then asked him to shift the dead body on the back seat and threatened him to keep mum or else he would face the same consequence. Satyanarain then took out belt of his pant and put the same around the neck of the deceased and then he and Sanjay in opposite direction pulled the same, which was eventually broken in two pieces. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the mandatory requirement for relying on testimony of approver is that he should himself inculpate as much as he does the other accused. Reference in this connection has been made to statement of Harchand @ Harish recorded under Section 306 (4) Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-7) on 10.08.2005, in which he stated that he did not commit the offence of murder and that he merely helped the other accused to put the dead body in the vehicle. He also stated that neither he nor Dagalnath caused injury to the deceased. He also stated that neither he nor Dagalnath caused injury to the deceased. Both of them are innocent. The tenor of the statement of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1), if read in entirety, is such that he was not a consenting party to the crime, though he has implicated all others with specific emphasis on Satyanarain, Govind and Suresh. Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) has thus wrongly been granted pardon, which is liable to be recalled. 13. It is argued that Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) has made allegation against Satyanarain that he retained all the belongings of the deceased, namely, two mobile handsets, purse, money and wrist watch, but the police has not recovered any of these items from Satyanarain. This coupled with the fact that recovery of bushirt and PAN card was made more than three months after the incident, clearly shows that the entire prosecution case is based on false story which has no correlation with what has been alleged by Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) as the approver. In fact, Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) stated that when he demanded from Satyanarain the amount of Rs. 2000/- which he realized by selling his cell phone on the first day, Satyanarain in the first instance, instead gave him one of the mobile handsets of deceased and then Harchand @ Harish further stated that he surreptitiously removed another mobile handset from the suitcase in the room of Satyanarain. Harchand @ Harish further stated that one of these mobile handsets was sold by him to Pukhraj (PW-17) through Narain (PW-11). When this mobile handset, was used by Pukhraj (PW-17), its subsequent buyer, the police got its IMEI number traced and through him reached Harchand @ Harish. The second mobile handset has not at all been recovered. Further statement of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) is that they were travelling in the Qualis vehicle of the deceased, they purchased petrol from petrol pump for the vehicle and Satyanarain paid Rs. 1000/- to the petrol pump salesman. The police has produced Pepsingh (PW-18), who was the salesman on the petrol pump. Pepsingh (PW-18) has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. 14. 1000/- to the petrol pump salesman. The police has produced Pepsingh (PW-18), who was the salesman on the petrol pump. Pepsingh (PW-18) has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) has even alleged that one of the tyres of the Qualis Vehicle got punctured and even then they drove the said vehicle as long as 15 kilometers but when they reached the shop to repair the puncture of the tyre, the shop owner refused to repair the puncture, the shop owner has not been produced in evidence nor the shop has been identified. The police has not even recovered the punctured tyre. Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) further alleged that when the vehicle was taken to Pushkar valley, then of them (Satyanarain and Sanjay) removed the shirt and vest of deceased and not the pant and threw away his body in the valley around 3:00-4:00 AM and thereafter they also threw away the clothes and shoes and the broken pieces of belt and jacket of Govind in the valley. Neither the shoes have been recovered nor even the broken pieces of belt were recovered. 15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the prosecution story based on statement of approver Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) is that all the accused thereafter went to Jaipur and tried to sell the vehicle to one person named Tonny but the police failed to produce that person in the evidence. Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) further alleged that all the accused persons stayed in the house of one Vijay Poonia but the police has not even produced him as a witness to corroborate this part of the statement. As per the prosecution version based on the testimony of approver, all the accused stayed in Sugandh hotel at Amer but hotel owner Dushyant Mehta (PW-21) has also not supported the prosecution story, and failed to identify the appellants. He was declared hostile. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that approver Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) is a clever person. He was either not a witness to the incident or he was main culprit of the offence. He is speaking false only in order to save himself and falsely implicate the other persons. He was declared hostile. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that approver Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) is a clever person. He was either not a witness to the incident or he was main culprit of the offence. He is speaking false only in order to save himself and falsely implicate the other persons. Reliance in this connection is placed on Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which provides that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. 16. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants have relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shrawan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 and Ram Pal Pithwa Rahidas and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 (Supp.) 2 SCC 73. 17. Arguing as regards to accused-appellant Satyanarain, Shri Biri Singh, learned counsel submitted that the FSL report (Exhibit P-92), on the basis of which the prosecution is claiming that his handwriting in the hotel register (Exhibit P-19) of Sugandh Hotel, Amer, District Jaipur, has matched with his admitted handwriting, cannot be relied to sustain his conviction. Badaruddin (PW-24), attesting witness to the seizure of hotel register (Exhibit P-19) and other witness Surya Bahadur were not examined. Original hotel register and specimen of admitted handwriting of accused Satyanarain @ Sattu were sent along-with letter of the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (Exhibit-11) to the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison, through constable Chhoturam (PW-12), who deposited the same in the FSL and obtained receipt dated 16.06.2005 (Exhibit P-12), wherein it is mentioned that there was overwriting on the disputed handwriting. In the FSL report dated 26.07.2005 (Exhibit P-92) it was specifically mentioned that the disputed hotel register and other specimen were received unsealed and that the disputed writing Q-1 and Q-2 was similar to A-1 to A-19 and it is of one and the same person. However, it was further mentioned that it is not possible to express any opinion with regard to authorship of disputed Q-3. Learned counsel therefore argued that the evidence available on record clearly suggests that there was overwriting on the disputed handwriting. The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to show as to when and in what manner the standard handwriting and admitted handwriting of accused-appellant Satyanarain was collected. Learned counsel therefore argued that the evidence available on record clearly suggests that there was overwriting on the disputed handwriting. The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to show as to when and in what manner the standard handwriting and admitted handwriting of accused-appellant Satyanarain was collected. Learned trial court has failed to appreciate as to what would be the effect of the observation of the FSL that the hotel register and the specimen were received in unsealed condition. In this scenario the possibility of tempering with the handwriting cannot be ruled out. The FSL report can therefore not be relied to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant. 18. Learned counsel argued that as far as the Test Identification Parade vide memo Exhibit P-20 of accused-appellant Satyanarain and Dagalnath is concerned, Dushyant Mehta (PW-21), who allegedly identified accused-appellant Satyanarain as one of the accused, but when he appeared in the court he failed to identify him. The evidence of Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and it only provides a corroboration to what is stated in the court, which is substantive piece of evidence. Dushyant Mehta (PW-21), the hotel owner, failed to identify the accused-appellant and therefore was declared hostile. Dushyant Mehta (PW-21), the hotel owner, has stated that before he was made to identify the accused, the police brought to him two-three boys and told him that they are accused in a murder case and that they had stayed in his hotel. It is thus clear that the accused were not kept with muffled face and they were shown to this witness even before they were subjected to Test Identification Parade. Memo of Test Identification Parade therefore has got no value. Learned counsel in this connection has relied on remand paper 30.05.2005 (Exhibit D-17), remand paper dated 24.05.2005 (Exhibit D-18) and remand paper dated 26.05.2005 (Exhibit D-20), from which it is clear that the accused-appellant Satyanarain was not kept with muffled face during remand proceedings. He also relied on daily newspaper ‘Navjyoti’ dated 14.05.2005, to show that his photograph was published therein, thus rendering the very sanctity of the Test Identification Parade futile. 19. Arguing the appeal of accused-appellant Mangla, Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Test Identification Parade was conducted by Mr. Kailash Chand Atwasia, RJS, (PW-32) and according to which Sawan Khan (PW-41) identified accused-appellant Mangla. 19. Arguing the appeal of accused-appellant Mangla, Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Test Identification Parade was conducted by Mr. Kailash Chand Atwasia, RJS, (PW-32) and according to which Sawan Khan (PW-41) identified accused-appellant Mangla. The police prepared site plan of the place (Exhibit P-33) at the instance of the accused-appellant Mangla Ram on 29.05.2005 where dead body of the deceased was found. It also prepared the site plan of Sugandh hotel vide Exhibit P-35 on 28.05.2005 at his instance, and recorded the information furnished by the accused- appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in respect of Sugandh hotel vide Exhibit P-88 on 28.05.2005. These documents did not lead to discovery of another new fact as both the places were already known to the police from before. It is submitted that evidence of Test Identification Parade (Exhibit P-70) against accused-appellants Mangla and Sumer has got no legal value. This evidence can only be used for the purpose of corroboration of substantive evidence, which could be identification of the accused by the witness in the court. Sawan Khan (PW-41) has not identified these two and another accused in the court. Reference in this connection is made to the case of Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Others vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295 . 20. Mr. R.C. Jatav, learned counsel for accused-appellant Dagalnath in Appeal No. 1269/2007, has mostly adopted the arguments made by Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel and additionally submitted that learned trial court has grossly erred in appreciating the statements of the prosecution witnesses, especially the approver Harchand @ Harish (PW-1). He could not have been made approver as he denied his involvement in the incident and that he submitted application under the pressure of the police. No specific allegation against accused-appellant Dagalnath except that he accompanied other accused, has been made. There is no evidence that he was aware of his being party to alleged conspiracy. Otherwise also there is no evidence of conspiracy. There is no evidence on record to the effect that the accused-appellant was aware of the intention of accused Satyanarain that he hired the taxi for the purpose of loot and not for going to certain place. 21. Otherwise also there is no evidence of conspiracy. There is no evidence on record to the effect that the accused-appellant was aware of the intention of accused Satyanarain that he hired the taxi for the purpose of loot and not for going to certain place. 21. Learned counsel submitted that though evidence in the present case has been recorded in a different trial but the arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel in the appeal filed by accused-appellant Suresh Panga, are also valid in this case. According to him, Harchand should not have been granted pardon and made approver because neither in his statement before the Judicial Magistrate recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-3 in Appeal No. 816/2016) nor in his statement in the court he has shown his active role in the crime. The tenor of his statement shows that while he exculpates himself but he inculpates all other accused. Such a witness does not qualify to become an approver for grant of pardon. Learned trial court did not evaluate the evidence of the prosecution in proper legal perspective and passed the impugned judgment in a manner is contrary to the sound principles of law. It has relied upon the circumstances for which no explanation was sought from the accused appellant during his examination under Selection 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court grossly misread the evidence which resulted into manifest misappropriation of evidence, which in turn caused great prejudice to the accused- appellant. The entire prosecution case is founded on the testimony of the approver, which cannot be solely relied for the purpose of conviction of the accused-appellant. Learned trial court has relied on testimony of approver without subjecting the same to critical scrutiny and mechanically convicted the accused-appellant. Testimony of the prosecution witnesses suffers from number of contradictions and all are full of omissions and improvements. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion howsoever grave cannot form the foundation of the conviction. The prosecution has failed to prove all such circumstances from which the court can reasonably arrive at a conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence. 22. Learned counsel argued that the allegation against the accused-appellant in specific that he caused injuries to deceased by kicks, is not proved by sufficient evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove all such circumstances from which the court can reasonably arrive at a conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence. 22. Learned counsel argued that the allegation against the accused-appellant in specific that he caused injuries to deceased by kicks, is not proved by sufficient evidence. In the postmortem report (Exhibit P-1) the corresponding injury is indicated to be the injury no. 5, namely, multiple abrasion of size 3 x 2 cm to ½ x ½ cm on scrotum both sides at places on dissection clotted blood 1 x 1 cm found on left testes. Left testes was found compressed and contused. Underlying tissues of scrotum were found as ecchymosed. Despite this injury, the medical board in the postmortem report has not opined this injury to be the cause of death and thus apparently this injury is only superficial in nature. The medical board opined that the cause of death would be given after receiving the chemical analysis report of viscera and blood. Dr. Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-1 in subsequent trial), who proved the postmortem report, has also stated that this injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has not stated that the head injury was sole cause of death and hence deviated from the opinion given in the postmortem report and changed the version by stating that the cause of death was cumulative effect of all the injuries, which were antemortem in nature. Learned counsel submitted that such statement made by Dr. Bhagwati Prasad (PW-1) for the first time before the court does not improve the case of the prosecution. Apparently none of the injuries has been opined to be grievous and no opinion thereabout has been expressed whether any one of them was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that the opinion regarding cause of death would be given after receiving the report of chemical examination of viscera and blood (Exhibit P-2 in subsequent trial). The result of examination as disclosed in the FSL report gave negative report for presence of any kind of poison, the cause of death thus could not be determined and therefore neither intention nor knowledge as to the culpable homicide amounting to murder can be attributed to the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant therefore cannot be convicted either for offence under Section 396 or 302 IPC. The accused-appellant therefore cannot be convicted either for offence under Section 396 or 302 IPC. Moreover learned counsel argued that the accused-appellant having been convicted for offence under Section 396 IPC could not have been convicted separately for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Conviction under Section 201 IPC was also bad in law. 23. Shri Sudhir Jain, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Suresh in Appeal No. 816/2016 alternatively argued that despite the conviction and of the accused-appellant for offence under Section 396 IPC in the facts of the case when the prosecution evidence is quite sketchy and does not provide any corroboration to the testimony of approver, excessive punishment of life imprisonment to all the accused may not be justified particularly when for that offence minimum sentence of ten years has been prescribed, which may extend to life imprisonment. 24. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Harchand @ Harish (PW-1 in first trial) has rightly been granted pardon and permission to become approver. Consistency in the manner in which the incident took place is disclosed in his detailed statements recorded either under Section 306(4) or 164 of the Cr.P.C. or in even the court statement recorded in the first trial or the court statement recorded in the subsequent trial inspires confidence. Minor contradictions in the statements of this witness does not affect the core of his testimony that he accompanied other accused when they hired taxi of the deceased and enroute put him to death with a view to loot his taxi and other articles. All the accused were part of the conspiracy, which was hatched to commit murder of the deceased for the purpose of looting his Qaulis vehicle. There may not be any direct evidence for the offence but it can be safely inferred from the intending circumstances that the accused hired the vehicle of the deceased for travelling purpose. Since the accused persons were more than five in number, the ingredients of Section 396 IPC were fully substantiated. The accused had travelled in the same vehicle to Amer (Jaipur) handwriting of accused-appellant Satyanarain, which he put in the hotel register while making entry of their stay, has matched with his admitted handwriting. Since the accused persons were more than five in number, the ingredients of Section 396 IPC were fully substantiated. The accused had travelled in the same vehicle to Amer (Jaipur) handwriting of accused-appellant Satyanarain, which he put in the hotel register while making entry of their stay, has matched with his admitted handwriting. Qualis vehicle was lying deserted in the parking space of Maotha in Amer (Jaipur), which along-with the entry of the accused in the hotel register, provides corroboration as to the fact of their presence in the hotel. The shirt and PAN card of the deceased have been recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Satyanarain. It is contended that mere fact that distance between the place where dead body of the deceased was lying and the place from where recovery of shirt and PAN card is one kilometer, does not in any manner affect the credibility of this recovery. Even approver Harchand @ Harish (PW-1 in first trial) has stated that accused Satyanarain stopped the vehicle in Pushkar valley and took off the clothes of the deceased, namely, shirt and vest, while the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the Pushkar valley, the clothes and shoes of the deceased and broken pieces of belt and jacket were thrown at a distant place from a running vehicle. Mobile handset of the deceased, which the approver sold to Pukhraj (PW-17) through Narain (PW-11), was immediately traced on the basis of IMEI when it was put to use. Learned Public Prosecutor has taken the court to various other statements of the prosecution witnesses and memos, which shall be adverted to at appropriate stage. 25. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and minutely scanned the material on record. 26. Learned Public Prosecutor has taken the court to various other statements of the prosecution witnesses and memos, which shall be adverted to at appropriate stage. 25. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and minutely scanned the material on record. 26. It is no doubt true that the police has not been able to recover second handset of mobile of the deceased, also could not recover the punctured tyre, was unable to produce the owner of the tyre repairing shop and could not produce the mechanic of the tyre repairing shop and also Tonny, whom the accused tried to sell the looted vehicle and further that Pepsingh (PW-18), the salesman of the petrol pump from where the accused allegedly purchased the petrol for the vehicle, has turned hostile, and that Dushyan Mehta (PW-21), the owner of the Sugandh Retreat Hotel where the accused stayed, has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile, Despite all this, we have to see whether testimony of approver inspires confidence and can be relied inasmuch as whether in view of objection of defence he has rightly been granted pardon that while he exculpates himself and inculpates all other accused. His earliest statement (Exhibit D-7 in the first trial) under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. recorded by the police on 10.08.2005 and thereafter his statement (Exhibit D-1 in the first trial) recorded by the police on 25.05.2005, and then his statement recorded in the court as PW-1, are strikingly similar inasmuch as his testimony has received sufficient corroboration so as to inspire confidence about his truthfulness and events have been narrated in the same sequence in all the three statements. His first statement (Exhibit D-1) was recorded by the police on 25.05.2005 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that he was resident of Khangar-Ki-Dhani, Village Khawda, Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur, and was working in a factory at Jodhpur. He stated that along-with Satyanarain @ Sattu, Sumer, Mangla Ram, Dagalnath, Govind, Sanjay and Suresh he had hired the Qualis taxi car on 17.02.2005 from railway station at about 10:00 PM and they committed murder of the vehicle-driver and threw his dead body in the valley and that he was involved in the incident from the beginning to end and now he wanted to become approver by accepting his crime. It is on the basis of this statement that the prosecution moved the application for grant of pardon. Separately, Harchand @ Harish himself also moved application to this effect. Thereafter his statement was recorded under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. on 10.08.2005. When we compare this statement with his court statement as PW-1 recorded on 26.06.2006, we indeed find that not only the two statements are substantially similar but the sequence in which the events have been narrated is also the same. This witness in making this statement has not faulted anywhere and does not give impression that he was concealing or suppressing anything from the court. We are not inclined to uphold the argument of the learned counsel that he exculpates himself and inculpates all other accused. The lead role has been played by accused-appellant Satyanarain @ Sattu and all other accused were working in aid to him. Different accused have played different role but since each of the accused had become part of the crime, they have been collectively charged for offence under Section 396 IPC, which inter-alia provides that if anyone of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder while in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. When five or more persons accused of committing offence under Section 396 IPC are tried, neither charge of offence under Section 149 IPC nor of sec 302 IPC need to be framed against them in association with Section 396 IPC or separately as those charges would be implicit in Section 396 itself. This is because Section 391 IPC provides that when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity. That means that act of one would bind others. What approver Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) has stated in his court statement is that Satyanarain @ Sattu (PW-1) took his mobile handset and sold the same through Suresh and Sanjay and thereby realized Rs. 2000/-. That means that act of one would bind others. What approver Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) has stated in his court statement is that Satyanarain @ Sattu (PW-1) took his mobile handset and sold the same through Suresh and Sanjay and thereby realized Rs. 2000/-. Then he asked Suresh and Sanjay to bring his luggage from his room. Thereafter all the accused entered the railway platform at his askance and came out so as to pretend as if they were travellers and this facilitated hiring of taxi. Accused Satyanarain then went to hire taxi and brought Qualis vehicle of the deceased on the pretext that they had to attend some wedding ceremony. Then Dagalnath on the way pretended as if he was feeling urge of vomiting. Satyanarain on that pretext asked the deceased to stop the vehicle. Satyanarain and Govind then robbed the way of Dagalnath. Satyanarain asked the deceased to bring a bottle of water. Sanjay was carrying a shawl. He put the shawl to cover the face of driver by that shawl. Satyanarain and Govind left Dagalnath and then Satyanarain strangulated the neck of the deceased and Govind caught hold of his hand. Suresh inflicted 3-4 kicks on his testicles. Sanjay and Govind searched his pockets and took two mobile handset, one wrist watch and currency notes of Rs. 6000/- and gave them to Satyanarain. Then this accused with the help of other accused, namely, Govind and Sanjay, shifted the dead body of the driver to the back seat of the vehicle. Satyanarain and Sanjay, who occupied the back seats, put the belt around his neck and pulled the same in opposite direction, as a result of which the belt was broken in two pieces. Dagalnath then took the driving seat. They purchased the petrol from the petrol pump, payment of which was made by Satyanarain. Then the vehicle got punctured enroute. They searched for the repair shop. One shop was found on the way but the mechanic in that shop refused to repair the tyre in night, therefore, they had to ply the vehicle for about 15-16 kilometers till the punctured tyre acquired heat and started smelling. They did not know how to remove the tyre. Eventually, Suresh and Dagalnath, by use of rod, were able to remove the punctured tyre and changed it by a stepney. They did not know how to remove the tyre. Eventually, Suresh and Dagalnath, by use of rod, were able to remove the punctured tyre and changed it by a stepney. The punctured tyre was placed on the dead body of the driver, then they went to Pushkar valley where Satyanarain stopped the vehicle. Satyanarain and Sanjay then took off the shirt and vest of the deceased and threw his dead body in the valley and also the shirt and vest and broken pieces of belt and his shoes. Further events disclosed by the approver is that they went to Jaipur and stayed in a Hotel at Amer. Sumer and Dagalnath left them for a trip. Other accused stayed there. Satyanarain then called his friend Tonny and asked him to get the vehicle sold. Tonny, learning about the manner in which the vehicle was looted by the accused, refused to cooperate. He advised them not to sell vehicle and rather leave it in the parking area of the hotel with its keys and windows open and go back to Jodhpur. They decided to abide by his advice but Satyanarain even then asked Govind to remove the tape recorder of the vehicle. Govind removed the same and gave it to Harchand @ Harish (PW-1), which he kept into the bag. They went to roadways bus stand at Jaipur and deposited their luggage i.e. suitcase and bag with a hotel. In the evening they went to the place of one Vijay Poonia. Then they had their meals there and spent the night in his house. On the next day morning, they came back to roadways bus stand and collected their suitcase and bags and then went to railway station and boarded the train for Jodhpur in the afternoon. Satyanarain had brought the papers of the Qualis vehicle. While travelling in the train, he took out the papers and torn them into pieces and threw them out. Upon reaching Jodhpur, they spent night in his room. In the morning, Harchand (PW-1) got a call from his father on the cellphone of Govind, who called him to his native as his mother was unwell. When he demanded from Satyanarain the money, which he fetched by selling his cell-phone, Satyanarain gave him mobile set from suitcase. Upon reaching Jodhpur, they spent night in his room. In the morning, Harchand (PW-1) got a call from his father on the cellphone of Govind, who called him to his native as his mother was unwell. When he demanded from Satyanarain the money, which he fetched by selling his cell-phone, Satyanarain gave him mobile set from suitcase. When all other persons were taking tea outside the room, he took another mobile handset of the deceased from the suitcase. When he was leaving for his room, Satyanarain warned him not to disclose the incident to anyone and threatened that otherwise he should also be ready to face the same consequences. After he returned back to Jodhpur and started working in the factory, he did not show his mobile handset to anyone. Then he asked his friend Narain that he wanted to get his mobile handset changed. They went to a shop in Sardarpura (Jodhpur) where they got a mobile phone changed. He signed on the bill given by the shopkeeper and Narain gave his cell number. After 10-15 days, police caught Narain and enquired as to where from he got this mobile handset and Narain gave his name and therefore the police came to the factory in the night and took him to the police station. During interrogation, he disclosed the entire incident to the police. The police recorded his statement in which he expressed his willingness to turn approver. Thereafter his statement was recorded before the Magistrate at Pushkar. He too filed application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he wanted to become approver. When he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the latter enquired from him that he has given the application willingly and asked him to rethink over it. This witness again reiterated his request and thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded his statement and also got certain papers signed. Statement of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1) was again recorded in the court on 26.06.2006 from the beginning because a new accused joined the trial. Even this statement is quite similar to the earlier statement given by the witness and earlier examination in chief recorded on 07.01.2006 and also the statement (Exhibit D-7). This witness was subjected to intensive cross-examination by the number of counsels representing different accused but he remained unshaken. Even this statement is quite similar to the earlier statement given by the witness and earlier examination in chief recorded on 07.01.2006 and also the statement (Exhibit D-7). This witness was subjected to intensive cross-examination by the number of counsels representing different accused but he remained unshaken. In fact, it was only when this witness sold the mobile handset to Anil Israni (PW4) in the first trial through his friend Narain also referred as Satyanarain and when this mobile handset was further sold by Anil Israni, to one Pukhraj against receipt (Exhibit P-4), who put it to use that the police could track Harchand (PW-1) in that chain. Anil Israni has been produced as PW-4, who stated that Satyanarain and Hukmaram (Harchand) came to him and expressed the will to exchange their mobile Samsung Company x 100 with Sony Erickson handset. He recorded the IMEI number of both the handsets and issued receipt dated 26.04.2005. Satyanarain signed the said receipt. Thereafter, he sold this mobile handset, which he took from Satyanarain to Pukhraj against receipt no. 220 dated 20.04.2005. Pukhraj has appeared as PW-17, who too stated that on 20.04.2005 he purchased one handset of Samsung make for a sum of Rs. 2900/- from Anil Israni. When he started using the mobile on cellphone number 9414414212, the police came to him on 15.05.2005 and enquired about the said mobile. He disclosed to the police from where he purchased the mobile handset. The police seized the mobile vide Exhibit P-15 and also the receipt vide Exhibit P-4. Both contained his signature. This corroborates what has been stated by Harchand @ Harish (PW-1). This fact that mobile handset of the deceased was recovered from Pukhraj, which has originated from the statement of Harchand @ Harish (PW-1). Narain has also been produced as PW-11, to whom the mobile handset was sold by Harchand @ Harish (PW-1). Anil Israni as PW-4 has stated that he was co worker of Harchand @ Harish in the factory. Harchand @ Harish told him that he has a Samsung mobile phone and he wanted to exchange the same. They went to the shop of Anil Israni and saw two instruments. Harchand @ Harish selected Soni Erickson mobile handset. Harchand @ Harish had signed as Hukmaram on the papers prepared by the shop owner. He gave his cell number 9314224280, which was also noted by him. They went to the shop of Anil Israni and saw two instruments. Harchand @ Harish selected Soni Erickson mobile handset. Harchand @ Harish had signed as Hukmaram on the papers prepared by the shop owner. He gave his cell number 9314224280, which was also noted by him. This complete chain by covering the events relating to the mobile handset. The police reached Harchand @ Harish and through him to two other accused. 27. The police made different recoveries. Most important of which is the recovery of Qualis vehicle and register of Sugandh Retreat Hotel at Amer, vide memo Exhibit P-18 and Exhibit P-19 respectively. Recovery of register of hotel has been proved by Dushyant Mehta, the owner of the said hotel. Qualis vehicle was found lying in the parking area by Constable of the Police Station, Amer. Dushyant Mehta (PW-21), owner of the hotel, has proved seizure memo of hotel register vide Exhibit P-19. Exhibit P-92 is the FSL report, according to which the disputed writing marked as Q-1, Q-2 and standard marked as A1 to A19 are in the handwriting of one and the same person for nine reasons stated therein. It is further stated therein that although no definite opinion can be expressed regarding authorship of disputed marked as Q3, but then Q1 to Q3 were the disputed writing, whereas A1 to A3 were the specimen writings of the accused and A19 was admitted writing. This therefore was proved by evidence that the entry in the hotel was made by none other than Satyanarain, which further finds corroboration from the fact that Qualis vehicle was also recovered from Amer itself. The prosecution has produced Sawan Khan (PW-41) as a witness, who was identified another taxi driver, who at the relevant time was present at the taxi stand. No doubt his statement Exhibit D-25 has been recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with delay of more than three months but nevertheless he has correctly identified approver Harchand and other accused, namely, Manglaram and Sumer. No doubt his statement Exhibit D-25 has been recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with delay of more than three months but nevertheless he has correctly identified approver Harchand and other accused, namely, Manglaram and Sumer. The contention of the defence that this witness has not been made to say in the court that he identified the accused in the court and also that he has not stated before the court that he identified the accused in the court, cannot be of much significance because this witness has narrated the true story and also stated that he identified three accused, namely, Harchand, Manglaram and Sumer and that his signatures to this effect on the test identification parade (Exhibit P-70) is there. But then, even if we ignore the testimony of this witness, the evidence otherwise available on record despite many lacuna in the prosecution case, sufficiently brings home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Coming now to the appeal of accused-appellant Suresh Panga, it should be noted that he was arrested quite late and therefore his trial was delayed. In his trial also, Harchand @ Harish, whose statement was recorded as PW-3, has again appeared as approver. We have gone through the statement of Harchand @ Harish (PW-3) and are inclined to again observe that this witness has remained throughout consistent ever since his statement was recorded by the police on 10.08.2005 under Section 306(4) of the Cr.P.C. then u/s 164 CrPC and thereafter in the trial of co-accused Satyanarain @ Sattu, Manglaram, Sumer Bant and Dagalnath and then in the trial of accused-appellant Suresh Panga. We do not intend to take any impression from the evidence of other trial but nevertheless when we see the statement of this witness and we find that his testimony, when compared with his statement u/s 306(4) (Exhibit D-7), is consistent in respect of all the material particulars, so much so the sequence in which the events were narrated by him also remain unchanged. This accused has also played an active role, as he stated that he too inflicted repeated blows of kicks over the chest of the deceased. As already observed earlier, we are not inclined to countenance the argument that pardon has wrongly been granted to him. Dr. This accused has also played an active role, as he stated that he too inflicted repeated blows of kicks over the chest of the deceased. As already observed earlier, we are not inclined to countenance the argument that pardon has wrongly been granted to him. Dr. Bhagwati Prasad (PW-1) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased (Exhibit P-1 in the subsequent trial), and stated that injury no. 5 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Although, in the postmortem report no definite cause of death was given awaiting the chemical examination report of viscera but in the court statement he stated that injury of the deceased sustained on the neck as also on the testicles was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Despite therefore the postmortem report and the medical evidence lacking on the part as to the cause of death, charge for offence u/s 396 IPC against all the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is also proved that the deceased did not die natural death but it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder and he died as a result of the injury caused by the accused. The accused therefore cannot be given advantage of the minor lacuna in the medical evidence as to the cause of death. The evidence otherwise produced on record has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 29. Coming now to the argument that once accused-appellant Suresh Panga has been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 396, he could not have been subjected to conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. As already held above when he had been charged for offence under Section 396 IPC, there is no need for his being charged or convicted separately for offence under Section 302 IPC as the offence of Section 302 IPC as it is, is implicit in Section 396 IPC. We may in this connection refer to judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1975 SC 3201 wherein it was held that accused could still be convicted under Section 302 IPC matter being involved one of the ingredient of Section 396 IPC. In the present case, however, the offence of dacoity with murder was committed in the same transaction and therefore the offence of Section 396 would cover both the offences. In the present case, however, the offence of dacoity with murder was committed in the same transaction and therefore the offence of Section 396 would cover both the offences. The conviction of the accused for distinct offence under Section 302 IPC was therefore, unnecessary and superfluous. However, conviction of the accused- appellants in both the appeals under Section 201 IPC has rightly been recorded because the same has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 30. Coming now to the alternative submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant that in now nature of evidence and the manner in which the crime has been committed and taking note of the investigation conducted by the investigating agency and the recoveries made, though, each of the accused by virtue of Section 396 IPC shall be vicariously responsible for the offence committed by anyone of them and the major role in the present case has been played by accused Satyanarain @ Sattu but even then all the accused accompanied him throughout and consented for committing murder of the deceased in the sense that they did not prevent him from doing so. They travelled with him from Jodhpur till Amer and not only murdered the driver Ditte Khan but threw his dead body in the valley and visited Amer (Jaipur) and thereafter leaving the Qualis vehicle in the deserted condition and back to Jodhpur. In the totality of the circumstances therefore the ends of justice would meet if each of accused-appellants, namely, Dagalnath, Mangla Ram, Sumer Banta and Satyanarain @ Sattu, are sentenced to the period already undergone by them as they have already served out 12 years and odd days of sentence excluding the remission period. However, accused-appellant Suresh Panga (Appeal No. 816/2016) having been arrested late, his sentence of Life Imprisonment for his conviction for offence under Section 396 IPC is also liable to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine awarded by learned trial court and default clause being maintained. 31. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. However, accused-appellant Suresh Panga (Appeal No. 816/2016) having been arrested late, his sentence of Life Imprisonment for his conviction for offence under Section 396 IPC is also liable to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine awarded by learned trial court and default clause being maintained. 31. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.06.2007 in Sessions Case No. 77/2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer, is modified in the terms that conviction of accused- appellants, namely, Mangla Ram S/o Malla Ram and Sumer Banta S/o Bhanwar Lal (Appeal No. 1270/2007), Dagalnath S/o Bhanwarnath (Appeal No. 1269/2007) and Satya Narain @ Sattu S/o Shimbhuram (Appeal No. 1399/2007), for offence under Section 396 IPC is maintained and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded for that offence is substituted by the imprisonment already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine on that count is maintained. Conviction of the said appellants for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment on that count and fine is maintained. They be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 32. Appeal No. 816/2016 is also partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 33/2013 (77/2005) is modified in the terms that conviction and sentence of accused-appellant Suresh Panga S/o Babu Lal for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC is set aside. His conviction for offence under Section 396 IPC is maintained, however, the sentence of life imprisonment on that count is substituted with rigorous imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. 33. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants Mangla Ram S/o Malla Ram and Sumer Banta S/o Bhanwar Lal (Appeal No. 1270/2007), Dagalnath S/o Bhanwarnath (Appeal No. 1269/2007) and Satya Narain @ Sattu S/o Shimbhuram (Appeal No. 1399/2007) are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 33. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants Mangla Ram S/o Malla Ram and Sumer Banta S/o Bhanwar Lal (Appeal No. 1270/2007), Dagalnath S/o Bhanwarnath (Appeal No. 1269/2007) and Satya Narain @ Sattu S/o Shimbhuram (Appeal No. 1399/2007) are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, he, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.