JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. Since these two appeals have been filed challenging judgment dated 04.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’), therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants Ajeet Singh and Kanaram challenging aforesaid judgment passed by the trial court whereby each of the them has been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. The accused-appellants have been further convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Facts of the case, as emerging from the record are that a written report (Exhibit P-3) was submitted by one Shailesh Kumar Sharma to SHO, Police Station Chomu at 7.20 A.M. on 19.02.2010 stating therein that he received information at 6.30 A.M. on that day that dead body of a person was lying near Khation Ki Dhani, opposite Stone Mart of Maliram Kumawat. When he went to the spot, certain people were standing there. There were marks of injuries on neck and back of the deceased. Prayer was made that action be taken against the culprits. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Mrig Report No. 6/2010 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered on 19.02.2010 regarding unknown dead body. Narendra Singh (P.W.21), SHO, Police Station Chomu found it to be a case of murder, therefore, regular FIR No. 88/2010 (Exhibit P-26) was registered wherein, it was alleged that on enquiry in proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., dead body was placed in the mortuary of CHC, Chomu. Photographs of the deceased were published in newspapers and all the police stations were informed. Brother of the deceased Shyodan (P.W.5) came to the police station on 20.02.2010. Dead body was shown to him at CHC, Chomu, which he identified to be of his brother, Shrawan Kumar son of Gopiram caste Prajapat aged 27 years resident Ajmer Road, Near Heerapura Power House, Gajsinghpura, Jaipur. Dead body was handed over to him. Brother of the deceased Shyodan (P.W.5) came to the police station on 20.02.2010. Dead body was shown to him at CHC, Chomu, which he identified to be of his brother, Shrawan Kumar son of Gopiram caste Prajapat aged 27 years resident Ajmer Road, Near Heerapura Power House, Gajsinghpura, Jaipur. Dead body was handed over to him. When enquiry was made from the persons accompanying brother of the deceased, it transpired that the deceased left his house on 18.02.2010 on motor cycle bearing No. RJ-14 SC 6067 for his in laws place. He was carrying mobile phone no. 9680683723, which was lying switched off since 18.02.2010 itself. They expressed doubt that the deceased had been murdered else where and his dead body had been thrown at the place, wherefrom it was recovered, seeing the nature of injuries and the fact that mobile handset and motor cycle of the deceased were not found near his body. It appeared that the deceased was put to death by strangulation. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, appellant Ajeet Singh was associate of Kanaram, who allegedly had illicit relations with Aarti (P.W.9), wife of deceased Shrawan, who, for this reason, has been murdered by Kanaram with the help of Ajeet Singh. The police on that conclusion submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants and accused Sunil Kumar in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu. The case after committal was made over to the trial court. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants and Sunil Kumar under Sections 302/34 and 201/34, which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. On 21.08.2013, accused Sunil Kumar was declared absconding. Thereafter, accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Though, no witness was produced in defence but 7 documents were got exhibited by the defence. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2014 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence, these appeals. 5. Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Ajeet Singh, argued that judgment of the trial court is based on perverse and erroneous findings. Circumstantial evidence against the accused-appellant is not such which may bring home his guilt. Hence, these appeals. 5. Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Ajeet Singh, argued that judgment of the trial court is based on perverse and erroneous findings. Circumstantial evidence against the accused-appellant is not such which may bring home his guilt. Trial court has not dealt with the evidence produced by the prosecution in its true perspective. Evidence of last seen given by Shyodan (P.W.5); Ram Kishan (P.W.8) and Ram Niwas (P.W.11) does not prove anything against the accused-appellant. Shyodan (P.W.5) has said so only for Kanaram. Ram Kishan (P.W.8) has stated that Kanaram and Sunil followed the deceased. This fact was not told to SHO by Shyodan (P.w.5) and Raju (P.W.6) before lodging of FIR. The call details obtained by the prosecution by e-mails of the service providers cannot be read against them because certificate requisite under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has not been procured and produced. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Bashir & Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 . Learned counsel submitted that recovery of mobile phone (Exhibit P-14) at the instance of Ajeet Singh cannot be used as evidence against him because the prosecution has not proved that sim card in that mobile was issued in the name of the appellant Ajeet Singh. Raju (P.W.6) and Lala Ram Prajapat (P.W.7) attesting witnesses to recovery of mobile have not proved this recovery memo. Nathi Devi (P.W.3) has stated that three persons came on motor cycle claiming themselves to be brother of Lala and gave proposal for marriage of the daughter of this witness with Lala. They asked this witness to come to their native and see Lala. One of them disclosed his name to be Kanaram, but he did not know him by face. Then this witness further stated that since she was observing parda, she also could not recognise Kana even in the Court. Attesting witnesses of recovery of motor cycle (Exhibit P-8), Pooran Prajapat (P.W.4) has failed to clarify as to where from this motor cycle was recovered. Shyodan (P.W.5), brother of the deceased in his testimony has made lot of improvements on the evidence of last seen and extra judicial confession against the appellant. Attesting witnesses of recovery of motor cycle (Exhibit P-8), Pooran Prajapat (P.W.4) has failed to clarify as to where from this motor cycle was recovered. Shyodan (P.W.5), brother of the deceased in his testimony has made lot of improvements on the evidence of last seen and extra judicial confession against the appellant. His emphesis was more on Kanaram that he was having illicit relations with Aarti (P.W.9), wife of the deceased. He for the first time stated in the Court that on 10th when Shravan etc. left home, Ajeet Singh was not with them and admitted that he named Ajeet Singh for the first time in the Court. It was because when he went to Indore, Sunil informed him that Ajeet Singh was also with them. When confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-1), in which he mentioned name of Ajeet Singh with Kanaram he stated that Kanaram told Raju and Gopal that he had murdered deceased Shravan and Sunil and Ajeet Singh were also with him. 6. Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned counsel referred to statement of Raju (P.W.6), who is the paternal uncle of the deceased and argued that he cannot be relied for the extra judicial confession of Kanaram. He is the attesting witness to Exhibit P-10 to Exhibit P-16, but in the Court he did not utter a single word about them and did not prove the same. His police statement (Exhibit D-3) was recorded on 22.02.2010, wherein he stated about extra judicial confession by Kanaram, in which he also named the other accused-appellant. Testimony of this witness is not reliable. Lala Ram Prajapat (P.W.7), who is witness of extra judicial confession did not attribute such confession to Ajeet Singh. Kanaram named himself and Sunil, but he did not name accused-appellant Ajeet Singh. Motor cycle of the deceased was recovered vide Exhibit P-8 and motor cycle of Kanaram was recovered vide Exhibit P-10, which were proved by this witness. As regards Exhibits P-13 to Exhibit P-16, he is also additional attesting witness, but he has denied any knowledge with regard to said recovery memos. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of this Court in Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1267/2007 decided on 01.06.2016) and Om Prakash @ Nanchhoo Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.175/2009 decided on 26.07.2016). 7. Mr. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of this Court in Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1267/2007 decided on 01.06.2016) and Om Prakash @ Nanchhoo Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.175/2009 decided on 26.07.2016). 7. Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Kanaram argued that there is no evidence of last seen against Kanaram and his conviction has been recorded on the basis of call details which cannot be relied in the absence of certificate requisite under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as already held by the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra). Trial Court committed serious error of law in not considering that the individual circumstances have not been proved and therefore no inference can be drawn for the guilt of the accused-appellant. Statements of prosecution witnesses on record do no prove that accused Kanaram was lastly seen with the deceased. The trial court has disbelieved the prosecution witnesses, who alleged that Kanaram was with the deceased prior to his death. Learned counsel argued that the trial court has committed serious error of law and facts in holding that the death was caused by strangulation whereas medical evidence says that it was asphyxia because ligature marks were found as such finding of the trial court is contrary to medical evidence. It is argued that the trial court erred in holding that post mortem report (Exhibit P-20) was of deceased whereas neither father’s name was mentioned in report, nor other witnesses, who identified dead body. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused appellant and the appellant committed his murder. There was no motive for the appellant to kill him because wife of deceased deposed that she had no illicit relation with the appellant and the deceased was cousin of the appellant. Learned counsel argued that prosecution story is completely false and the trial court has failed to consider that the witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and they improved upon their earlier statements. Seized mobile phones were not of the appellant and deceased. 8. Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant argued that Gopiram (P.W.10) did not prove the fact of the accused-appellant was lastly seen with the deceased. Seized mobile phones were not of the appellant and deceased. 8. Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant argued that Gopiram (P.W.10) did not prove the fact of the accused-appellant was lastly seen with the deceased. It is argued that the trial court in para 20 and 21 of the judgment has recorded perverse finding as to the burden of proof and rather shifted the burden on the appellant to prove his innocence whereas the prosecution is duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, findings recorded by the trial court in para 28 to 31 of the judgment are based on conjectures and surmises. The trial court was wholly unjustified in disbelieving the statement of doctor, who stated that the deceased was strangulated by hand and believed case of prosecution that he must have been strangulated by hand. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh @ Ghoda Vs. The State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor, 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) 181 and argued that chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the appellant has several missing links and do not rule out the possibility of accused-appellant being innocent. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the accused-appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 9. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and supported the judgment passed by the trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to statements of Shyodan (P.W.5); Raju (P.W.6) and Ram Kishan (P.W.8) and contended that these witnesses have stated that accused Kanaram though participated in the funeral process of the deceased, but he was looking quite perturbed, which was indicative of his guilty mind. He argued that as per Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, such conduct of the accused is an admissible circumstance against him. Lala Ram Prajapat (P.W.7) has also proved his extra judicial confession. Shyodan (P.W.5) and Ram Kishan (P.W.8) have proved the evidence of last seen. Apart from that, recoveries of mobile phone of the deceased (Exhibit P-2) as also mobile phone of accused Kanaram (Exhibit P-16) were made at the instance of accused Kanaram, which proved that his mobile phone was in the name of his father Jagdish. Besides, electric cord, which was used for strangulating the deceased was recovered vide Exhibit P-15. Apart from that, recoveries of mobile phone of the deceased (Exhibit P-2) as also mobile phone of accused Kanaram (Exhibit P-16) were made at the instance of accused Kanaram, which proved that his mobile phone was in the name of his father Jagdish. Besides, electric cord, which was used for strangulating the deceased was recovered vide Exhibit P-15. Recovery of one mobile phone and tempo at the instance of accused Ajeet Singh was made vide Exhibit P-14. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that recovery memos can be taken as proved on the mere testimony of investigating officer. Call details of deceased mobile (Exhibit P-22) and call details of mobile phone of accused Kanaram (Exhibit P-24) sufficiently proved that accused Kanaram was in constant touch with the deceased at the time of occurrence and location was also in the vicinity of each other. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, prayed that appeals be dismissed. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also record of the case. 11. Post mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit P-20) has been proved by Dr. Ajit Singh (P.W.17). According to post mortem report, cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Time since death was indicated to be 24 to 48 hours when the post mortem was conducted. All the injuries were opined to be ante mortem in nature. There were multiple abrasions and bruises on the left side of neck as also in front of neck and over on its right side. Apart from this, there was no other injury indicated. Dr. Ajit Singh (P.W.17), Member of the Medical Board, which conducted post mortem of the deceased, has stated that rigor mortis was set in the body. There was fracture of hyoid bone of the neck. Other organs of the body were healthy. There were no other marks of struggle such as abrasions and bruise on any other part of the body except neck. There was no such internal injury which could be responsible for his death. Though ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased. In their opinion, cause of death was strangulation. Dr. Bajrang Lal Meena (P.W.18), another member of the board, which conducted post mortem, has also stated that scalp and scalp vertebra were healthy. Brain membrane was congested. Ribs were healthy. Pleurae was healthy. Larynx and Trachea were congested. Pericardium was healthy. In their opinion, cause of death was strangulation. Dr. Bajrang Lal Meena (P.W.18), another member of the board, which conducted post mortem, has also stated that scalp and scalp vertebra were healthy. Brain membrane was congested. Ribs were healthy. Pleurae was healthy. Larynx and Trachea were congested. Pericardium was healthy. Right chamber of heart was full of blood and left chamber was empty. Large vessel and stomach wall were healthy. Stomach was empty, but gas was present. Small intestine was empty and gas was present. Large intestine was empty and gas was present. Spleen and kidney were congested, but bladder was healthy. Muscles of the left side of neck was torn. There were signs of multiple bruise on the neck. In the opinion of the members of the Board cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. 12. Narendra Kumar (P.W.21) has proved that Kanaram during investigation gave voluntary information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-27) for getting mobile phone of deceased Shravan recovered, which he had placed in the tool box of his motorcycle. Similarly, information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-28) was given by accused Kanaram, about the place where he took out sim and battery of mobile. He also gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-29) that he can identify the house of a person situated at Road No. 6, Jaipur, where he along with Sunil and deceased Shravan had drinks together and parked motor cycle of the deceased and sat in the tempo of Ajeet Singh and also the place where they threw his dead body and a cord, which was put in the tempo of Ajeet and his own motor cycle, which was lying at his residence. Accused Ajeeet Singh gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for getting his own cell phone recovered and also identify the place where from Kanaram and Sunil brought the deceased and sat in his tempo and where they threw his dead body and he can also get his tempo recovered. Similarly information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-31) was given by accused Sunil with regard to place where they had drinks and where from the deceased was made to sit in the tempo of Ajeet Singh and where his dead body was thrown. Similarly information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-31) was given by accused Sunil with regard to place where they had drinks and where from the deceased was made to sit in the tempo of Ajeet Singh and where his dead body was thrown. Seizure memo of motor cycle of the deceased was Exhibit P-8. Seizure memo of motor cycle of accused Kanaram was Exhibit P-10. Seizure memo of tempo of the accused Ajeet Singh and his mobile phone was Exhibit P-14; seizure memo of one electric cord recovered at the instance of accused Kanaram from the tempo of Ajeet Singh was Exhibit P-15. Seizure memo of mobile phone of the deceased recovered at the instance of the Kanaram is Exhibit P-16. Raju (P.W.6), Lala Ram Prajapt (P.W.7) were attesting witnesses of these recoveries. It is a matter of surprise that none of these witnesses uttered anything about the recoveries of aforesaid articles in their presence. However, their focus in the Court has been on extra judicial confession made by accused Kanaram. Though the aforesaid recovery memos have been proved by the investigating officer, Narendra Singh (P.W.21). If these recoveries are taken to merely provide corroboration to the evidence which is otherwise brought on record, we have to now, therefore, analyze evidence of the prosecution with regard to last seen, motive and extra judicial confession made by accused Kanaram. 13. As regards last seen, Shyodan (P.W.5), brother of the deceased has stated that the deceased left their house on 18.02.2010 on motor cycle with Kanaram and Sunil for going to his in-laws place. They were on two separate motor cycles. One motor cycle was of Kanaram and another was of Shravan. Kanaram and Shravan both had their mobile phones. Kanaram was son of his paternal uncle. When the deceased did not return back till late night, his father was worried and he asked this witness to go to in laws place of the deceased. He went there in early morning of the following day. There he learnt that the deceased came there around 5-6 P.M. on previous day and had taken a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of plot. Search was made from other relatives, but when his whereabouts could not be known, they went to Shyam Nagar Police Station to lodge the report. Police personnel told them to go to Police Station Rampura Dabra. 10,000/- for purchase of plot. Search was made from other relatives, but when his whereabouts could not be known, they went to Shyam Nagar Police Station to lodge the report. Police personnel told them to go to Police Station Rampura Dabra. Dinesh, Gopal, Ashok, Bhanwar, Raju also came from their village. They went to Chomu. Dinesh telephoned Lalaram from Chomu and told that Shravan was found in the hospital at Chomu. Then they went there and identified his dead body. Shravan used to regularly deposit money for purchase of plot with his father-in-law. This witness then stated that wife of the deceased Shravan had illicit relations with Kanaram. This was seen by wife of this witness Kali as also the deceased himself and some other persons. Their relations were going on for last two years. Kanaram had filed petition seeking divorce from his wife. Sunil was friend of Kanaram. Kanaram told Raju and Gopal that he had murdered Shravan and at that time, Ajeet Singh and Sunil were also with him. Mobile sim of cell phone of Shravan was in the name of his mother-in-law. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he has not seen Kanaram committing murder of Shravan. He denied suggestion that he was making this allegation against Kanaram because he was having illicit relations with the wife of deceased. Kanaram told Raju and Gopal that he had murdered Shravan and Kanaram told this fact again in the presence of police personnel. In further cross-examination, this witness stated that Sunil and Kanaram left their house after Shravan had already gone. Ajeet Singh at that time was not with them. In-laws of the deceased Shravan told him that Shravan came there on motor cycle. Since Sunil disclosed this fact that Ajeet Singh was with them, he was naming Ajeet Singh in the Court. Kanaram told Raju and Gopal that he murdered Shravan and also that Sunil and Ajeet were also with them. When this witness was confronted with police statement (Exhibit D-1), he could not explain why this fact was not stated by him to the police in Exhibit D-1 recorded on 21.02.2010. 14. Raju (P.W.6) also stated that when Kanaram left home, immediately thereafter Shravan also left the home and followed him. Kanaram had illicit relations with the wife of Shravan, who saw one night Kanaram and his wife with each other. 14. Raju (P.W.6) also stated that when Kanaram left home, immediately thereafter Shravan also left the home and followed him. Kanaram had illicit relations with the wife of Shravan, who saw one night Kanaram and his wife with each other. He was saying that Kanaram used to tease his wife. Kanaram attended funeral of Shravan and he was apparently perturbed and looked very tense. When they enquired from Kanaram about deceased, he could not give any satisfactory answer. He stated that he had gone to attend some death feast. At that time he was not with the deceased. They were not satisfied with this answer and insisted Kanaram to go there but Kanaram refued to do so. Subsequently, Kanaram agreed that this mistake had been committed by him and he, Sunil and Ajeet Singh were together and Shravan was also with them. Initially, Kanaram said that Sunil had actually killed Shravan, but subsequently he told the police that he himself killed Shravan and others were part of conspiracy. It may be significant to note that this witness was confronted with part of his police statement (Exhibit D-3) where he did not state that Kanaram was initially reluctant to accompany them to police station and initially told him that Sunil murdered Shravan but subsequently stated that he himself was the one who put him to death. But that does not make any difference because the core of the statement was that Kanaram agreed that he has committed mistake and he should be saved. He further stated that he and his friend Sunil and Ajeet Singh murdered deceased Shravan by strangulating his neck and he should be pardoned for this mistake. The fact that Raju did not say anything about various memos of recoveries as he was attesting witness would not cause any dent to the prosecution case. 15. Lalaram Prajapat (P.W.7) another attesting witness of the aforesaid memos has supported such recoveries, apart from Narendra Singh (P.W.21), investigating officer. While in earlier part of the statement he has stated that all these recoveries were made in his presence by the police, but in last sentence of the examination-in-chief, he uttered that all these memos were not made in his presence. While in earlier part of the statement he has stated that all these recoveries were made in his presence by the police, but in last sentence of the examination-in-chief, he uttered that all these memos were not made in his presence. This is minor contradiction, which can be overlooked because this one sentence cannot dilute the effect of complete part of statement where he separately stated about recovery of motor cycle of Shravan vide Exhibit P-8 at the instance of Kanaram; motor cycle of Kanaram vide Exhibit P-10; preparation of site plan for recovery of motor cycle of Kanaram vide Exhibit P-11; preparation of site plan of the place where dead body was recovered vide Exhibit P-12. He specifically stated that site plan of place of incident was prepared at that place which contains his signature. One mobile and tempo of Ajeet Singh was recovered vide Exhibit P-14. One rope and one voter ID card of the deceased was recovered vide Exhibit P-15 and one mobile was recovered at the instance of accused Kanaram vide Exhibit P-16. These memos weer signed by him. Lalaram Prajapat (P.W.7) has stated that Shravan left his house on 18.02.2010 on his motor cycle. Shravan was not traceable for two days. He had gone to his in laws native. Despite search he could not be located. His brother lodged FIR with Police Station Shyam Nagar. Later they learnt that his dead body had been found in Rampura. He has stated that Kanaram met him in the funeral of Shravan. Kanaram also disappeared during those two days and could not be seen in the village. Relations between Shravan and Kanaram were quite strained as there was dispute between them because of wife of Shravan. A day after the funeral of Shravan, Kanaram was coming after ritual/pooja of the death of Shravan and ‘ramdyara’ (a pot containing water) was in the hands of Kanaram. He had feeling of remorse and told that he had committed mistake and the incident had taken place by them indicating murder of the deceased Shravan. When he was taken to police station, he also named Sunil as his companion. He told that they murdered Shravan at Dabri Rampura Road. No other person had any quarrel with Shravan except Kanaram. This witness in cross-examination stated that last rituals of the deceased were conducted by Kanaram being his younger cousin. When he was taken to police station, he also named Sunil as his companion. He told that they murdered Shravan at Dabri Rampura Road. No other person had any quarrel with Shravan except Kanaram. This witness in cross-examination stated that last rituals of the deceased were conducted by Kanaram being his younger cousin. It is wrong to suggest that Kanaram did not tell him that he and Sunil murdered Shravan. This witness did not name Ajeet but Raju (P.W.6) claimed that Kanaram made a confession to him and named Sunil as well as Ajeet as his companions. 16. Ram Kishan (P.W.8) has stated that Shravan left his house at 4.00 P.M. to pay some money to his father-in-law. Immediately, after Shravan left, Kanaram and Sunil also followed him to his in-laws place. Thereafter, Shravan did not come back. They made enquiries from all the relatives, but his whereabouts could not be known for as long as two days. Father-in-law of Shravan told him that he left their house at 5 O’clock. Three days thereafter, it transpired that he had been murdered and his dead body was found in Chomu. This transpired from newspaper report. This witness then stated that he had seen Aarti, wife of Shravan and Kanaram sleeping on the same cot some 13 months ago. This was two months before the death of Shravan. Shravan also knew this because he too had seen Aarti and Kanaram in compromising position on one cot. They gave beating to Kanaram on this and also tried to persuade him to desist from this kind of activities. Kanaram murdered Shravan because of his wife. Kanaram had no enmity with anyone except Shravan. House of Kanaram was adjacent to house of Shravan, but they never expected that things could go this far and till the dead body of Shravan was found, they did not doubt Kanaram. This witness was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit D-3) and asked to explain why did he not tell the police that he had seen Kanaram and Aarti sleeping on the same cot and that they gave beating to Kanaram and also tried to counsel him. This witness stated that he had informed the police that the accused Kanaram had illicit relations with Aarti wife of the deceased and this fact became known to all the family members. This witness stated that he had informed the police that the accused Kanaram had illicit relations with Aarti wife of the deceased and this fact became known to all the family members. Shravan himself saw them in compromising position and ever since both were having tense relations. Kanaram has deserted his own wife. When this was cross checked from Exhibit D-3, it is found correct that this witness has stated so. 17. Aarti herself has appeared as P.W.9 and stated that Kanaram was son of her husband’s uncle. Her husband Shravan Kumar left the house for her parents house after saying that he had to give some money to her mother. He promised to return back in the evening. When he did not come, all the family members went in his search but on third day, they learnt from the newspapers that his dead body was lying in a hospital at Chomu. This witness has stated that her husband was murdered by Kanaram, but she did not indicate the reason why did he do so. This witness was declared hostile. 18. Gopiram (P.W.10), father of the deceased has stated that the deceased told him to go to his in-laws in another village at Harmada on motor cycle and promised to return back by evening. When he did not come till the following morning, this witness asked his son Shyodan to make enquiry, who went to Shravan’s in-laws house. Then, his son-in-law, Gopal first of all came to learn from newspaper that dead body of Shravan was lying in Chomu Hospital where he along with Shyodan went to hospital at Chomu and identified dead body of Shravan. In cross-examination, this witness stated that on the day when Shravan went to his in-laws for paying Rs. 10,000/-, Kanaram was also present at home and he also immediately left and followed him. He was accompanied by his friend, who was Bagdi by caste, thus, indicated name of Sunil. 19. Ramniwas (P.W.11), father-in-law of the deceased had stated that the deceased came to him around 4.45-5.00 P.M. and gave him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and left after taking tea. On the next day, he received phone call from Shyodan, who told that Shravan had not yet reached home. Brother-in-law of the deceased Gopal read news of his death in the newspaper. 10,000/- and left after taking tea. On the next day, he received phone call from Shyodan, who told that Shravan had not yet reached home. Brother-in-law of the deceased Gopal read news of his death in the newspaper. Then Gopal along with Shyodan went to hospital at Chomu and identified dead body. Bhagwan Sahai (P.W.12) has stated that he received two installments of Rs. 10,000/- each through Ramniwas for sale of a plot to Shravan. When he left, he was alone. Smt. Vimla Devi (P.W.16) stated that Shravan was husband of her sister Aarti and he obtained sim card in her name and was using the same. Jasphool Singh (P.W.20) is computer operator of Police Station Chomu, who has stated that he obtained call details of cell phone no. 9680683723 and 9928760238. First number was issued in the name of Vimla Devi and second number was issued in the name of Jagannath, father of accused Kanaram. He obtained call details through Commissionerate, Jaipur vide Exhibit P-22 and Exhibit P-24 respectively. It may be significant to note that neither certificate requisite under Section 65(B)(4) of the Act in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V.(supra) has been produced, nor the Nodal Officer of the concerned telecom company has been produced to prove that the call details were generated from their computer system and issued under the valid authentication, in the absence of which it may not be possible for this Court to rely on these call details. However, it may be noted that accused Sunil absconded during trial on 21.08.2013 and is still absconding. The contention that Lalaram has not stated that accused appellant kanaram while making extra judicial confession to him has named Ajeet Singh would not make any difference as to his culpability. When the statements of Raju (P.W.6) and Lalaram (P.W.7) are read separately, initially extra judicial confession was made to them separately. 20. Police has made recovery of motor cycle of the deceased as well as Kanaram (Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-10 respectively) at the instance of Kanaram. They also seized tempo of Ajeet and his mobile. This tempo was actively used because as per the evidence of the prosecution Ajeet Singh and other accused and Shravan reached together at the house of a person at Road No. 6, Jaipur. They also seized tempo of Ajeet and his mobile. This tempo was actively used because as per the evidence of the prosecution Ajeet Singh and other accused and Shravan reached together at the house of a person at Road No. 6, Jaipur. Motor cycles of Kanaram as well as Shravan were left in that house and then they left by tempo of accused Ajeet Singh. Cord with the help of which the deceased was strangulated and voter ID card of the deceased were seized vide Exhibit P-15 at the instance of Kanaram from the tempo of Ajeet Singh. Dead body was then carried in the tempo and was thrown at the place wherefrom it was recovered. The cord which was used to strangulate neck of the deceased belonged to accused-appellant Ajeet Singh as it was used to start the tempo. The cord had turned black because of frequent use for this purpose. Its length was 7 feet and 7 inch and at one end of the cord a wooden piece was tide to pull it with force for starting the tempo. This cord is put around the pully attached to engine of the tempo. Role of the accused Ajeet Singh even if has been disclosed by Kanaram to Raju alone and has been so stated by Raju and not by Lalaram, would not in any manner improve his case owing to the aforesaid factors. Minor contradictions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses here and there cannot be taken as a basis to throw entire case of the prosecution. 21. Discussion aforesaid would show that the evidence on record has proved guilt of both the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court in our view was perfectly justified in not accepting the arguments of the appellants defence that asphyxia could be caused by strangulation with the help of hands and not by cord and rightly concluded that this could be possible by strangulating the neck of the deceased with the hands or by use of cord because the deceased sustained injuries around the neck towards right and left side, which may not be possible by using of hands. Minor discrepancies in the statements of medical officers therefore would not improve the case of the accused-appellants. Minor discrepancies in the statements of medical officers therefore would not improve the case of the accused-appellants. In the present case prosecution witnesses have proved that accused Kanaram and Sunil followed the deceased and they were later joined by Ajeet Singh which is corroborated by the fact that motor cycle of deceased was recovered at the instance of Kanaram vide Exhibit P-8. Even without call details, there is otherwise sufficient evidence to prove guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Judgments cited by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants are distinguishable on the facts of present case and do not provide any help to the accused-appellants. 22. In view of above discussion, both the appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Judgment dated 04.12.2014 passed by the trial court is confirmed.