JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. Since all these appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 21.12.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the trial court’), they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants Vandana Parihar, Anoop Sharma and Bajrang Lal, challenging aforesaid judgment whereby each of the them has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment; convicted under Section 302/120-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment; convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment. Apart from above, the trial court has also additionally convicted accused-appellant Anoop Sharma for offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that a missing person report no. 7/2009 was lodged by one Dr. Krishan Kumar Mangal with Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (Exhibit P-1) on 21.05.2009 alleging therein that his younger brother Mukesh Kumar Mangal @ Billu, aged 38 years, had gone to Jaipur city area along with his nephew Raghav Mangal in between 4.30 P.M. and 6.30 P.M. on that day for purchasing certain goods in connection with his business. During this period, he received certain phone calls and was heard saying to someone that he (Mukesh) would be soon coming to him. Then, he dropped his nephew Raghav with goods at his residence and went on the motor cycle saying that he would return back after sometime. He has however not returned yet. Despite all the efforts made by the informant and enquiries made by him from different places, friends, relatives, whereabouts of his younger brother, whose mobile number was mentioned in the report, could not be ascertained. He has however not returned yet. Despite all the efforts made by the informant and enquiries made by him from different places, friends, relatives, whereabouts of his younger brother, whose mobile number was mentioned in the report, could not be ascertained. It was also mentioned that last telephonic conversation with him took place at about 9.30 P.M. on his mobile phone. 4. That after the enquiry was made into the aforementioned missing person report, Ravindra Kumar, S.H.O., Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur submitted a written report (Exhibit P-75) to S.H.O., Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur on 21.05.2009 at 11.55 P.M. Therein, it was contended that when call details of mobile phone of Mukesh Kumar Mangal no. 9414204583 were obtained, it transpired that he received call from mobile phone no. 9950603918 at 5.38 P.M. and thereafter at 6.34 P.M. and then he talked from his mobile to someone on mobile no. 9950603918 and thereafter, he received calls from mobile no. 9950603918 at 6.37 and 6.40 P.M. and thereafter again talked on the aforesaid mobile at 7.08 and 7.14 P.M. Mukesh Mangal talked from his mobile no. 9414204583 at about 9.08 P.M. with someone on mobile phone no. 9829095759, which phone was later discovered to be that of Anoop Sharma. Last call made by Mukesh Mangal from his mobile was to mobile no. 9929709997 at 9.25 P.M. When Dr. K.K. Mangal called on the aforesaid phone number, one lady named Vandana Vyas, who picked up the phone, spoke but later she disconnected the phone. Since these three phone numbers 9950603918, 9829095759 and 9929709997 were suspected, their call details were obtained, upon which it transpired that first cell phone number was of Bajrang Lal son of Shri Mohan Lal resident of 138, Jato Ka Mohalla, Tejia Ka Was, Phulera, Jaipur. Babu Lal, ASI along with Constable Gyan Chand went to Phulera and brought suspect Bajrang Lal to Police Station Bajaj Nagar. Initially he pleaded ignorance about entire episode but during interrogation, he disclosed that he was employed with Anoop Sharma and Vandana Vyas since 01.05.2009 on monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. Anoop told him in the morning of 20.05.2009 that Mukesh Kumar Mangal was also engaged in the same business which he (Anoop) was doing, owing to which the former was not getting good business and suffering losses, therefore, it was necessary to murder him. 5,000/-. Anoop told him in the morning of 20.05.2009 that Mukesh Kumar Mangal was also engaged in the same business which he (Anoop) was doing, owing to which the former was not getting good business and suffering losses, therefore, it was necessary to murder him. It was revealed that Bajrang then contacted Mukesh on his phone and assured him that he would get a big business deal if he came to Ankur Apartment. Bajrang, Anoop, Vandana and two more boys came to the office at Ankur Apartment. Mukesh Kumar Mangal reached that office between 8.00 P.M. and 8.30 P.M. When they were having discussions, they asked Vandana to prepare ‘pakodas’. Mukesh, Anoop and other two boys started drinking beer. He further stated that Vandana as per the previous plan mixed some sleeping pills in the ‘pakodas’. When Mukesh consumed them, he became unconscious. All the accused collectively killed him by inflicting blows of broken beer bottles and lathies. Mukesh after some time died. Bajrang informed that he could take them at the place where the dead body of Mukesh was lying. 5. On that information, Ravindra Kumar, C.I., Ramanand S.I., Babulal, A.S.I., Gyan Chand, FC 6019 and Ramant, FC 8320 along with Bajrang Lal and two witnesses Dinesh and Pawan went to Ankur Apartment, where Bajrang pointed towards a room situated at top floor of that building and told that dead body was lying therein. Since the room was locked and the place of incident fell in the jurisdiction of Police Station Jyoti Nagar, SHO, Police Station Jyoti Nagar was telephonically informed. Soon after arrival of Shri Lakhan Singh, SHO, Police Station Jyoti Nagar, lock of aforesaid room was broken and it was noticed that pool of blood was spread over the floor. Dinesh and Pawan immediately identified that dead body of Mukesh Mangal lying therein. Thereupon, regular FIR No. 117/2009 was registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and investigation commenced. 6. That the Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet initially against Bajrang Lal and Prahlad Sharma for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, but later on supplementary charge sheet was filed against Anoop Sharma and Vandana Parihar (Vyas) for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. However, the investigation was still kept pending against Pushkar Dutt Sharma and Rakesh Sharma. However, the investigation was still kept pending against Pushkar Dutt Sharma and Rakesh Sharma. Trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant Bajrang Lal under Section 302/120B, 302 and 201 IPC, against Prahlad Sharma under Section 201/511 IPC, Anoop Sharma under Section 302/120B, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act and against Vandana Parihar (Vyas) under Section 302/120B, 302, 201 IPC, which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 56 witnesses and exhibited 101 documents. Accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Though, no witness was produced in defence, but eight documents were exhibited at the instance of defence. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2015, acquitted accused Prahlad Sharma of the charges framed against him and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence these appeals. 7. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Vandana Parihar (Vyas) argued that there is no evidence of the fact that accused Vandana had asked Bajrang Lal to call deceased Mukesh to the flat of Ankur Apartment. Testimony of Krishan Kumar Mangal (P.W.1) is wholly unrealiable because it was full of contradictions as also improvements over the previous version given to the police. The trial court has held that on certain aspects, testimony of Raghav Mangal (P.W.53) was also not reliable. Statement of Bajrang Lal allegedly given to Ravindra Kumar, S.H.O., Police Station was recorded in the shape of confession and such statement would therefore be inadmissible in view of the provision contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Learned trial court has yet illegally relied on certain parts of statement of Krishan Kumar Mangal (P.W.1) with reference to the aforesaid confession. Another witness for proving extra judicial confession of the accused Bajrang Lal produced by the prosecution is Balchand (P.W.23), who has stated that on 08.05.2009 and 09.05.2009 he was removed from the job by Anoop Sharma and that Bajrang Lal had made an extra judicial confession in his presence that some altercation took place between deceased Mukesh Mangal and co-accused Anoop Sharma, Bajrang Lal, Pushkar and Rakesh, in which deceased Mukesh Mangal was hit by a baseball bat. Said story of extra-judicial confession by Bajrang Lal was completely unreliable and could not have been acted upon. Brother of Balchand, Suraj Karan (P.W.37), has not supported the case of prosecution in that behalf and was declared hostile. Story of extra-judicial confession set up by the prosecution with reference to statement of Bajrang Lal was completely unreliable and the trial court has erred in relying on the extrajudicial confession of Bajrang Lal on the basis of statement of Balchand (P.W.23). Even otherwise, extra judicial confession of co-accused is a very weak piece of evidence and could not be relied by the trial court for conviction of the appellant. 8. It is argued that the trial court has seriously erred in relying on the call details of the appellants which could not be taken as proved because requisite certificate in compliance of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not produced. The trial court has wrongly held that mobile no. 9929709997 belongs to Vandana or that mobile no. 9829095759 belongs to the appellant. None of the call details were proved as per the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Bashir & Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 . It is argued that the trial court has committed serious illegality in relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 to convict the appellant for accepting the call details as admissible in evidence whereas that judgment has been specifically overruled by a bench of larger strength of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra). Viscera of deceased was sent to FSL which in its report (Exhibit P-50) showed presence of tranquilizing drug. However, the said report does not inspire confidence because seizure of viscera was not made in presence of independent witnesses. There is no evidence to prove that any tranquilizer was purchased by the appellant. In these circumstances, there is no proof of the fact that the alleged tranquilizer was mixed in the pakoda by the appellant Vandana Parihar (Vyas). Even otherwise, call records do not prove as to what was spoken over the phone and cannot be used as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. In these circumstances, there is no proof of the fact that the alleged tranquilizer was mixed in the pakoda by the appellant Vandana Parihar (Vyas). Even otherwise, call records do not prove as to what was spoken over the phone and cannot be used as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. The aid circumstances therefore, are not proved in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babubhai Bhimbhai Bokhiria Vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 5 SCC 568 . There is no credible evidence to show that flat in Ankur Apartment was given on rent to the appellant Vandana Parihar. Prosecution witness produced in respect of the same, Jitendra Kumar (P.W.25) was declared hostile. There is no credible evidence to show that the appellant was present in the flat on the day of incident. No cooking material was seized from the site and no photographs were brought on record. 9. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel argued that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be well proved and those circumstances should incriminate the accused in the crime and the only hypothesis possible should be one of guilt and should be inconsistent with innocence of the accused, which is not the case in the present appeals. It is argued that a first information report containing confessional statement of the accused to the police officer cannot be used against him in view of bar contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In dealing with a case against an accused, the court cannot start with confession of a co-accused. Learned counsel argued that testimony of Bhuwan Chandra Joshi (P.W.17) cannot be relied, who claimed to be employee of Kendriya Bhandar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur where the deceased used to supply goods because his police statement was recorded two months after the incident. There is no evidence on record to show that deceased and Anoop were trading in the same commodity and both were supplying goods to the Bhandar. Jitendra Kumar Khandelwal (P.W.25) was wrongly relied by the trial court to hold that flat where the dead body was found was let out by this witness to accused-appellant Vandana Parihar on monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- as no rent note or any other document was produced by the prosecution to prove so. Jitendra Kumar Khandelwal (P.W.25) was wrongly relied by the trial court to hold that flat where the dead body was found was let out by this witness to accused-appellant Vandana Parihar on monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- as no rent note or any other document was produced by the prosecution to prove so. In cross-examination, this witness clearly admitted that neither any rent note was executed by him in favour of Vandana nor the title document of disputed flat of Ankur Apartment have been produced on record. Testimony of Ajeet Singh (P.W.6) has wrongly been relied by the trial court, who stated that Flat No. 12-ka-2, Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur was owned by him, which was let out by him to Sumitra Sharma on monthly rent of Rs. 4400/-, who sub-let a room thereof to Vandana and Anoop on monthly rent of Rs. 2,300/- which they were using for office purpose. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he did not produce any title documents to show that he was owner of the said flat. Although, a rent note was executed between them but copy of the rent note was not produced by him either before the police or before the court. There was also no evidence of the fact of payment of rent. 10. Learned counsel submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, accused Vandana called the deceased from her mobile phone at 9.25 P.M., which indicates that she was not present in the flat of Ankur Apartment whereas the evidence of the prosecution otherwise proves that deceased had already reached there by 7.30 P.M. It cannot be therefore believed that Vandana would also be present there along with other co-accused and the deceased and they would still talk to each other on mobile phones rather than talking in person. Anil Khandelwal (P.W.40) has stated that Mukesh Mangal met him in front of PF Office, Jyoti Nagar at 6.00-7.00 P.M. and told that he was waiting for Bajrang Lal which shows that Mukesh along with Bajrang reached at the flat of Ankur Apartment well before 8.30 P.M. Learned counsel argued that flat was opened by the police from where the dead body of Mukesh Kumar Mangal was recovered. Yet, however, on the information allegedly given by accused Vandana under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P-86) on 09.11.2009, purse was shown recovered at her instance vide Exhibit P-18 from Flat No. 12-K-2, Jyoti Nagar. This recovery was shown to have been made by Vasudev (P.W.4), Assistant Sub Inspector and according to him, house was owned by Ajeet Singh (P.W.6), who was present when the recovery was made. Key of this room was lying in bathroom, which was brought by Anoop Sharma and lock of the room was opened. Vandana was also along with them. If Anoop Sharma opened the lock of the room, then the recovery cannot be attributed to accused-appellant Vandana, argued the learned counsel. On the other hand, Ajeet Singh (P.W.6) has stated that room was opened by the police personnel. Recovery of purse cannot be held to have been made at the instance of accused-appellant Vandana. 11. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State, AIR 1966 SC 119 ; Pancho Vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165 and Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 ; Sunil Rai Vs. UT Chandigarh, (2011) 12 SCC 258 ; Babubhai Bhimbhai Bokhiria (supra); Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer, AIR (1956) 404 SC 71; Murlidhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 11 SCC 133 ; Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2002) 6 SCC 739 ; Thankayyan Vs. State of Kerala, (1994) SCC 1751; Mohd. Aman Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44 and judgment of Bombay High Court in Sunil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 (2) Bom CR (Cri) 683. 12. Mr. Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Anoop Sharma argued that the impugned judgment is bad in eye of law, being against the material and evidence available on record and the criminal jurisprudence. Case of the prosecution against the appellant is false as the very basis of the story of prosecution is the alleged confession of the co-accused Bajrang Lal before the Police Personnel of Police Station Bajaj Nagar, which was not even brought on record into writing. Case of the prosecution against the appellant is false as the very basis of the story of prosecution is the alleged confession of the co-accused Bajrang Lal before the Police Personnel of Police Station Bajaj Nagar, which was not even brought on record into writing. It is submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the said Bajrang Lal made confession and also disclosed the name of the appellant and alleged that the appellant had participated in the murder of the deceased. Such kind of confession is not admissible as per Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act as it was admittedly given while in custody of the Police to the Police Officer. Hence, the very genesis of the prosecution case against the appellant is a faulty one and shows that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The learned trial court, while convicting the accused-appellant committed a legal and factual error and failed to consider such aspect of the case. As per the story of the prosecution and also according to the contents of the written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted by brother of the deceased at the concerned Police Station on the basis of which the M.P.R. (Exhibit P-74) was registered, it is evident that no allegation or doubt was raised from the side of the complainant and the family of the deceased against the appellant. There was no allegation from the side of the complainant regarding any motive of any person or appellant to kill Mukesh Kumar Mangal (deceased). The prosecution falsely implicated the humble appellant in the instant criminal case. In such facts and circumstances, the appellant cannot be held to be guilty for the offence charged against him. 13. It is argued that learned trial court while convicting the accused appellant committed legal as well as factual error and failed to consider that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of interested witnesses, who cannot be considered trustworthy. There are material improvements as well as contradictions in their version. In this respect, it is submitted that Krishan Kumar Mangal (P.W.1) is an important witness of prosecution and he cannot be considered a trust worthy witness. There are material improvements as well as contradictions in their version. In this respect, it is submitted that Krishan Kumar Mangal (P.W.1) is an important witness of prosecution and he cannot be considered a trust worthy witness. The trial court also found that he has made substantial improvements in his version, which shows that such type of interested witnesses were trying to make a false case against the appellant. Learned trial court while passing the judgment of conviction could not appreciate the evidence and material in proper perspective. The most important witness of the prosecution could have been Raghav Mangal (P.W.53), who was last to accompany the deceased before he left the house on 20.05.2009 but his statement does not help the case of the prosecution. The learned trial court has also noted in the impugned judgment that at the time when the deceased left the house, he did not tell Raghav Mangal (P.W.53) as to where was he going and whom would he meet. In such scenario, his testimony was treated to be completely unreliable by the learned court below. Hence in the present case, there is not a single witness who can be relied to hold that the deceased went to see the accused appellant after leaving the house. Number of witnesses were examined before the trial court to prove presence of the accused at the place of crime with the deceased and reliance was placed on mobile phone conversations, may be of his relatives, with the deceased. But the learned trial court did not accept the statement of any of such witnesses that the deceased told them that he was with the accused appellant at the relevant time, whereas the mobile conversation of these witnesses with the deceased was taken as proved. In such facts and circumstances, the prosecution could not prove presence of the deceased with the accused. 14. Mr. Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel argued that in a case where the prosecution tries to prove guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there has to be evidence which suggests that there is no reason to believe that any person other than the accused could have committed the offence. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution is extra-judicial confession of co-accused Bajrang Lal, in which he has allegedly recited the name of the appellant as an accused of the case. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution is extra-judicial confession of co-accused Bajrang Lal, in which he has allegedly recited the name of the appellant as an accused of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that Bajrang Lal confessed the guilt before Balchand (P.W.23) and before the Police. It is submitted that such kind of evidence is considered to be weak one and has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The extra judicial confession has to be supported by other credible evidence. But the learned trial court on the basis of conjectures and surmises has accepted such kind of weak and unreliable evidence to record finding of conviction against the appellant. It is argued that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove all the incriminating circumstances against the accused-appellant, but the learned trial court wrongly placed the burden of proof on the shoulders of accused. The prosecution brought the evidence of mobile call details to prove its case, but there is no credible evidence of any telephonic conversation of the appellant with deceased. Only on the basis of the alleged call detail of the appellant with the co-accused, the learned trial court illegally assumed that the appellant was also involved in the case whereas it was the duty of the trial court to evaluate the entire evidence and then come to the conclusion. 15. It is submitted that Dr. R.K. Punia (P.W.14), who conducted the autopsy of the deceased on examination before the court has admitted that the injuries on the person of the deceased could also be caused due to fall on the ground and as per the version of the medical expert, death of the deceased cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt to be homicidal one. But the learned trial court even after such facts, on its own, acting as a medical expert, came to the conclusion that the deceased was murdered. Learned trial court has failed to consider that the present one being a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to bring strong evidence, which could connect the accused with the alleged crime. The prosecution has failed to bring any evidence or any witness, who could reveal that the deceased was lastly seen with the appellant at any time after leaving the house on 20.05.2009. The prosecution has failed to bring any evidence or any witness, who could reveal that the deceased was lastly seen with the appellant at any time after leaving the house on 20.05.2009. It is submitted that only in order to falsely implicate the appellant, improved statements of interested witnesses have been got recorded that when the deceased spoke to relative witnesses on mobile phone, he told that he was with appellant and other accused persons. Such kind of version of the witnesses has not been accepted even by the learned trial court. In such facts and circumstances, when there is not a single witness of last seen, it cannot be said that the accused appellant is in any manner is related to the present criminal case. 16. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider that the factor of ‘motive’ is totally doubtful in the present case and the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily prove the motive of the accused appellant in the present incident to kill the deceased. The prosecution for the purpose of proving the factor of motive brought forward a baseless theory of business rivalry for which no credible evidence could be produced. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the factor of motive plays an important role to connect a person with the alleged crime. The motive should be so much strong, in a case where there is no direct evidence against the accused, so that on the basis of that motive, it is so much probable that the accused had no other option except to kill the deceased. But in the present case, the prosecution could bring only a weak motive, which is also not proved by the witnesses. Since the prosecution could not prove the motive of the accused appellant to commit the crime beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial court dated 21.12.2015 deserves to be set-aside. 17. Mr. Amit Dadhich, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Bajrang Lal argued that impugned judgment dated 21.12.2015 passed by learned trial court is legally not sustainable being contrary to provisions of law as also the facts of the present case. The trial court has committed serious error of law as well as of fact in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for offence which he never committed. The trial court has committed serious error of law as well as of fact in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for offence which he never committed. It is submitted that no offence as alleged is made out and proved against the appellant from the evidence produced by the prosecution during trial. The prosecution story, reproduced from FIR in the charge sheet, has no coordination or corroboration. The prosecution has completely failed to prove guilt of the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. The confession allegedly made by the appellant/accused vide Exhibit P-75, F.I.R. is not admissible under law because the confession is shown to have been made before police officer which is not admissible under section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act. This is also an important fact that some person kidnapped the appellant and handed over him to the police and the police foisted a false case against him on the basis of motive of some other accused. The accused/appellant was arrested on 22.05.2009 but Exhibit P-25 of his search was prepared on 21.05.2009 at 11.40 P.M. Neither the accused appellant was working under Anoop Sharma nor he lived in Jaipur. 18. Learned counsel argued that there are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of such witnesses. The conviction based on such evidence for an offence, which has not been committed by the appellant, especially when both the independent witnesses have been declared hostile, is liable to be set aside. The witnesses of the prosecution have suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and have not corroborated the story of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses cannot be treated as credible and reliable witnesses. Referring to memo of recovery of blood stained pant at the instance of Bajrang Lal (Exhibit P-16), learned counsel submitted that word ‘blood’ in that memo has been subsequently inserted by interpolation. Therefore, the recovery appears to be tainted. Besides, mere presence of blood does not prove anything because its grouping has not been done. Referring to memo of recovery of blood stained pant at the instance of Bajrang Lal (Exhibit P-16), learned counsel submitted that word ‘blood’ in that memo has been subsequently inserted by interpolation. Therefore, the recovery appears to be tainted. Besides, mere presence of blood does not prove anything because its grouping has not been done. Bajrang had nothing to do with the motive and it cannot be believed that Bajrang Lal, who joined employment with Anoop only on 01.05.2009, would go to extent of committing murder of someone at his askance within three weeks thereafter. The flat from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered was already known to the police and recovery of baseball bat shown at the instance of Bajrang Lal vide Exhibit P-41 cannot be treated as discovery of any new fact. Besides, disputed flat of Ankur Apartment was not in exclusive possession of the appellant. It is submitted that Balchand was making false statement because Bajrang Lal was employed by Anoop after his removal. He, therefore, has a reason to falsely implicate the accused Bajrang. 19. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and submitted that accused-appellants have rightly been convicted for the alleged offences. The trial court was perfectly justified in convicting them as the charges against them were substantiated by ocular as well as documentary evidence. It is argued that even if the extra-judicial confession made by accused-appellant Bajrang Lal to SHO is not relied, the facts, which were discovered pursuant to information furnished by accused Bajrang would still be admissible in evidence as part of that confession statement can still be treated as information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and would be admissible in evidence. In support of his argument, learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640. It is argued that extra judicial confession has rightly been taken note of by the learned trial court on the basis of testimony of Balchand. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit P-61), which has been proved by R.K. Chaturvedi (P.W.16), member of the forensic team. He argued that site plan of the place of incident (Exhibit P-25) was prepared at the instance of Bajrang in the presence of attesting witnesses Dinesh (P.W.7) and Pawan Parashar (P.W.10). Learned Public Prosecutor referred to report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit P-61), which has been proved by R.K. Chaturvedi (P.W.16), member of the forensic team. He argued that site plan of the place of incident (Exhibit P-25) was prepared at the instance of Bajrang in the presence of attesting witnesses Dinesh (P.W.7) and Pawan Parashar (P.W.10). It was at his instance that dead body was recovered from third floor of Ankur Apartment in the presence of Krishan Kumar Mangal (P.W.1), Rajesh Mangal (P.W.52) and Lakhan Singh (P.W.50) and Ravindra Kumar (P.W.56). Though the missing person report was originally given to SHO, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, dead body was recovered from the territorial jurisdiction of police station Jyoti Nagar, therefore, SHO of that police station was called. SHO, Police Station Bajaj Nagar gave a written report to SHO, Police Station Jyoti Nagar (Exhibit P-75). 20. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that lock of main gate of the flat was broken in the presence of Dinesh (P.W.7), Anand Mishra (P.W.15) and Lakhan Singh (P.W.50) and seizure memo of broken lock (Exhibit P-26) was prepared on 22.05.2009. This fact is also incorporated by the I.O., Lakhan Singh (P.W.50). Recovery of two steel plates containing food stuff vide Exhibit P-28, has been proved by this very witness, which shows that ‘pakodas’ were fried and given to the deceased for consumption. During inspection of the place of incident by Forensic Team, two wrappers of tablets; namely-Alprazolam, were recovered vide Exhibit P-30, which has been proved by Dinesh (P.W.7), Anand Mishra (P.W.15), Lakhan Singh (P.W.50). Sample of the blood, which was spread all over the floor of the flat, was also obtained on a cotton gauze vide Exhibit P-32 and was sealed and marked ‘H’. Blue and Grey colour pant and shirt with black strips and vest of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Mangal were recovered vide Exhibit P-33 and sent to FSL. As per FSL Report (Exhibit P-93), vest was found to contain human blood; pant was found positive for the presence of human blood but its grouping could not be determined. 21. It is argued that baseball bat was recovered at the instance of Bajrang Lal vide Exhibit P-41, which has been proved by Jitendra Meharwal (P.W.9); Mitesh Pareek (P.W.8) as also Investigating Officer, Lakhan Singh (P.W.50). As per FSL Report (Exhibit P-93), it was also found to contain human blood of B Group. 21. It is argued that baseball bat was recovered at the instance of Bajrang Lal vide Exhibit P-41, which has been proved by Jitendra Meharwal (P.W.9); Mitesh Pareek (P.W.8) as also Investigating Officer, Lakhan Singh (P.W.50). As per FSL Report (Exhibit P-93), it was also found to contain human blood of B Group. Empty bottle of Beer was also recovered vide Exhibit P-42, which was proved by these very witnesses. As per FSL Report (Exhibit P-93), stains of human blood of B Group were also found on this bottle. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to Exhibit P-43, by which batter of gram flour, (‘ghol of besan’) was seized. Both batter of gram flour, (‘ghol of besan’) and viscera of the deceased obtained from his stomach were sent to forensic science laboratory, report of which is Exhibit P-50 gave positive tests for the presence of a Banzodiazepine tranquilizing drug and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and insecticides. Viscera was also found positive for the presence of Ethyl Alcohol and gave negative test for methyl alcohol which proves that accused had made the deceased to consume certain amount of alcohol before he was put to death. Learned Public Prosecutor, in support of his arguments relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Alber Oraon Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 12 SCC 306 ; A.N. Venkatesh & Another Vs. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714 and Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 . 22. We have given anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also the cited precedents. 23. Evidence on record shows that the incident had taken place in the premise situated at Ankur Apartment where from Anoop Sharma and Vandana Parihar used to run their business. The deceased and the accused-appellants used to work in similar kind of business. They were contract suppliers of Kendriya Bhandar, details of which were provided to SHO, Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur by Shailendra Saxena (P.W.28), Manager, Kendriya Bhandar with forwarding letter dated 29.05.2009 vide Exhibit P-70 and Exhibit P-71. Who has proved aforesaid Exhibits. Bhuwan Chandra Joshi (P.W.17), was working as Junior Salesman in Kendriya Bhandar. He has stated that both accused Anoop and deceased were supplier contractor of their Bhandar. Who has proved aforesaid Exhibits. Bhuwan Chandra Joshi (P.W.17), was working as Junior Salesman in Kendriya Bhandar. He has stated that both accused Anoop and deceased were supplier contractor of their Bhandar. Jitendra Kumar Khandelwal (P.W.25), owner of Flat No. 13 of Ankur Apartment, in which office of the appellants was situated, has deposed that he purchased this flat from Govind Lashkari about 5-6 years ago and let out the same to Vandana Vyas on monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-. A rent note was also prepared. Vandana Vyas telephonically informed him that she would vacate the flat, as they wanted to take some other premise on rent for office purpose, but later he learnt that some murder has taken place in that flat. Mere non-production of rent note on record would be inconsequential because the incident admittedly took place in this flat, which is proved from the fact that dead body of Mukesh Kumar Mangal was found therein. In fact, the dead body could be discovered only when the police tracked down the accused appellant Bajrang Lal at Phulera on the basis of location of his mobile phone no. 9950603918 and sent Babu Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector to Phulera, who brought him to Police Station Bajaj Nagar for interrogation. We may at this stage, observe that call details were obtained by the police while they were investigating into missing person report no. 7/9 (Exhibit P-74) initially lodged by Dr. Krishan Kumar Mangal, elder brother of the deceased and in that process, the police recorded confessional statement of Bajrang Lal. We are inclined to uphold the argument that statement of accused-appellant Bajrang Lal to the extent, it records his confession that he along with other accused committed murder of Mukesh Kumar Mangal may not be admissible in evidence as it is hit by provisions of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. However, at the same time it must be held that part of that statement can nevertheless be considered as information requisite under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to discovery of place of incident and dead body of Mukesh Kumar Mangal from there. Therefore, these facts that were discovered pursuant to such information would still be admissible in evidence. 24. Ravindra Kumar Yadav (P.W.56) was SHO, Police Station Bajaj Nagar at the relevant time. He has stated that Dr. Therefore, these facts that were discovered pursuant to such information would still be admissible in evidence. 24. Ravindra Kumar Yadav (P.W.56) was SHO, Police Station Bajaj Nagar at the relevant time. He has stated that Dr. Krishan Kumar Mangal lodged a missing person report at 8.30 A.M. on 21.05.2009 wherein it was stated that when the deceased lastly left, he carried two mobile handsets, numbers whereof were 9414204583 and 9314044815. Call details of his mobile were obtained and on the basis of conversations on 20.05.2009, suspects were identified. Cell phone no. 9829095759 was disclosed by Krishan Kumar Mangal to be that of Anoop Sharma. Another cell phone no. 9929709997 was of Vandana Parihar (Vyas) resident of Kartarpura. Third cell phone no. 9950603918 was of Bajrang Lal. On the basis of his address, a team with Babu Lal, ASI was sent to Phulera/Sambhar, who brought Bajrang Lal to Police Station Bajaj Nagar. During interrogation, Bajrang Lal disclosed that he was employed with Anoop Sharma and Vandana Vyas and on their askance, he called deceased Mukesh Kumar Mangal to their office in Ankur Apartment in the night at around 8.30-9.00 P.M. Anoop Sharma, Vandana Parihar (Vyas) and two other persons were present there. They first consumed beer and Anoop Sharma asked Vandana to prepare some ‘besan pakodis’ in which she mixed tranquilizing pills. When Mukesh Kumar Mangal became unconscious, they murdered him by inflicting blows by baseball bat, beer bottles and lathi. Although, this part of the statement of this witness cannot be accepted as admissible in evidence, but he further stated that at the information of Bajrang Lal, they took him to the place of incident, which he had to verify and since that place was falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jyoti Nagar, thus the SHO of that police station was informed and a police team proceeded with two attesting witnesses to the office of Anoop Sharma situated at third floor in Ankur Apartment. The flat in Ankur Apartment was locked. Bajrang Lal identified the flat. Key of the lock was not available, therefore, Bajrang Lal was asked to break the lock. Dead body of Mukesh Kumar Mangal was found lying inside the flat, which was immediately recognized by Dinesh and Pawan. The flat in Ankur Apartment was locked. Bajrang Lal identified the flat. Key of the lock was not available, therefore, Bajrang Lal was asked to break the lock. Dead body of Mukesh Kumar Mangal was found lying inside the flat, which was immediately recognized by Dinesh and Pawan. This witness has stated that he gave written report of the entire incident to SHO, Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur and also handed over to him, MPR No. 07/09 along with the documents and the custody of Bajrang Lal. Babu Lal (P.W.18), Assistant Sub Inspector, who went to Phulera and brought Bajrang Lal to Police Station Bajaj Nagar, has also corroborated his statement. 25. The Investigating Officer, Lakhan Singh (P.W.50) has also corroborated the fact that written report (Exhibit P-75) was given to him by SHO, Police Station Bajaj Nagar at 11.55 P.M. on 21.05.2009 on the basis of which, FIR No. 117/2009 was registered for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC by sending Sitaram, Constable to Police Station Jyoti Nagar. Missing person report was marked as Exhibit P-1 and inquest report of the dead body was marked as Exhibit P-2, which was prepared on 22.05.2009 at 3.10 A.M. Site plan prepared at the instance of Ravindera Kumar was Exhibit P-24. Accused Bajrang Lal was arrested at 1.30 A.M. on 22.05.2009 from Ankur Apartment, Jyoti Nagar. Memo of his personal search and arrest is Exhibit P-40. He has also stated that when the flat was opened at the instance of Bajrang, dead body of Mukesh Mangal was found lying there in a pool of blood. Blood was spread all over the floor with blood stains being there on the walls too. There were signs of blood indicating dragging of the dead body. Broken lock was seized and sealed vide Exhibit P-26. Two steel plates containing food material were recovered from the place of incident on 22.05.2009. They were also seized and sealed vide Exhibit P-28. Two empty wrappers of tranquilizing medicines were found on the platform of the kitchen. Three tablets were found missing in one wrapper and two tablets were also found missing in another wrapper. These wrappers were seized vide Exhibit P-30. Samples of the blood were lifted from the floor as also from wall of both the rooms on cotton gauze and were packed in a bag of white cloth. Seizure memo thereof was Exhibit P-32. Three tablets were found missing in one wrapper and two tablets were also found missing in another wrapper. These wrappers were seized vide Exhibit P-30. Samples of the blood were lifted from the floor as also from wall of both the rooms on cotton gauze and were packed in a bag of white cloth. Seizure memo thereof was Exhibit P-32. One gray-blue colour pant, white vest (baniyan), green colour with black strips shirt, containing blood stains, were packed in a polythene bag and thereafter, they were kept in a white cloth bag and sealed vide Exhibit P-33. Recovery of baseball bat was made at the instance of Bajrang Lal, which was found in another room vide Exhibit P-41. Empty beer bottles and broken pieces of bottles were seized and sealed vide Exhibit P-42. Batter of gram flour (‘besan ka ghol’) was sealed in a polythene bag and put in a clothed bag and sealed vide Exhibit P-43. All these memos were containing specimen seals. R.K. Chaturvedi (P.W.16), Senior Scientist Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory inspected the place of incident on 22.05.2009 and his report was marked as Exhibit P-61. Photographs of the place of incident were Exhibit P-51 to Exhibit P-60. Lakhan Singh (P.W.50) then stated that Bajrang Lal vide exhibit P-80 gave information that he could get the iron rod, wooden baseball bat and empty bottles of beer recovered, which were used to murder Mukesh Mangal and which were eventually recovered at his instance. He also gave information vide Exhibit P-81 that he could get the clothes recovered which he was wearing at the time of incident. On the basis of aforesaid information, his blood stained pant with white marks was sealed vide Exhibit P-16. 26. According to Lakhan Singh (P.W.50), Bajrang Lal gave information on 31.05.2009 vide Exhibit P-82 that he could identify the place where he called the deceased Mukesh Mangal and from where, he along with Vandana Parihar (Vyas), had taken the deceased to their office in a Scorpio bearing No. RJ-01 UA 0758 and the place where he parked motor cycle of the deceased. Site plan of aforesaid place is Exhibit P-23. Anoop Sharma and Vandana Vyas were arrested vide Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 on 06.11.2009. Site plan of aforesaid place is Exhibit P-23. Anoop Sharma and Vandana Vyas were arrested vide Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 on 06.11.2009. On 09.11.2009, Anoop Sharma gave information vide Exhibit P-85 that he could get the clothes recovered which they changed at their another office at 12-K-2, Jyoti Nagar Housing Board, Jaipur after murdering Mukesh Mangal as also iron rod and mobile phone. All these articles were recovered at the instance of Anoop Sharma vide Exhibit P-17 and were kept in a white cloth bag. On 09.11.2009, Vandana Vyas gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-86, pursuant to which, black colour purse of deceased was recovered from Flat No. 12-K-2, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur vide Exhibit P-18. This purse was containing slips of papers, PAN Card, photo and visiting cards of the deceased. On 10.11.2009, Anoop Sharma gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-87 that he could get the motor cycle of the deceased recovered, pursuant to which, motor cycle of Mukesh Mangal bearing No. RJ14 SF 7192 was recovered from SMS Hospital Parking vide Exhibit P-63. Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given by Vandana Parihar (Vyas) vide Exhibit P-91, pursuant to which a mobile phone Nokia make was recovered on 16.11.2009 vide Exhibit P-10. On 15.11.2009, Anoop Sharma gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-92, pursuant to which a country made pistol (‘desi katta’) along with one live cartridge was recovered vide Exhibit P-7. Recovery memo of belongings of Anoop Sharma was Exhibit P-5 which included a wrist watch, black colour purse, cash Rs. 9,000/-, three blank cheques of Union Bank, three mobile sim, two ATM cards, one diary, one mobile phone in black colour of Tata Indicom Company. This recovery was made after arrest of Anoop Sharma. Similarly, on the basis of information given by Anoop Sharma, one mobile handset was recovered vide Exhibit P-11. Post Mortem Report of the deceased was Exhibit P-49 and FSL Report was Exhibit P-50. After arrest of accused Vandana, she was searched and various items were recovered from her possession, which were sealed vide Exhibit P-6. All these articles were correctly identified by Lakhan Singh (P.W.50) in the Court. One Scorpio bearing No. RJ01 UA 0758 was produced before him on 11.11.2009, which was seized vide Exhibit P-62. After arrest of accused Vandana, she was searched and various items were recovered from her possession, which were sealed vide Exhibit P-6. All these articles were correctly identified by Lakhan Singh (P.W.50) in the Court. One Scorpio bearing No. RJ01 UA 0758 was produced before him on 11.11.2009, which was seized vide Exhibit P-62. This witness further stated that details of supply made by accused Anoop Sharma and the deceased Mukesh Mangal to Kendriya Bhandar were received by him vide Exhibit P-70 and Exhibit P-71. He also proved that he obtained ledger account of Kendriya Bhandar from January, 2009 to 31st March, 2009. Sanction for prosecution against accused Anoop Sharma was obtained from the Collector, which was Exhibit P-77. FSL Reports were exhibit as Exhibit P-93 and Exhibit P-94. 27. Argument has been raised that call details cannot be relied in absence of certificate requisite under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act and further that the learned trial court was not justified in relying upon Two-Judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru (supra), which has been overruled by Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra). The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru (supra), the famous Parliament attack case, held that according to Section 63 of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, “copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies”. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced in evidence, if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers, which cannot be easily moved and produced in the Court. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service providing company can be led in evidence through a witness, who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service providing company can be led in evidence through a witness, who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. The Supreme Court further observed that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It was specifically held that if the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed, that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. 28. Correctness of the aforesaid view was doubted by Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra). It may be significant to observe that this case arose out of the election dispute and was not a murder case. Therein, the Supreme Court noted that evidence in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru (supra) relating to electronic record, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. It was held that State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru (supra) did not lay down the correct law and was therefore, overruled. But a recent Three-Judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178 , again had the occasion to consider this very question. Therein, it was observed that the computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65-B makes admissible as a document, paper printout of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65-B makes admissible as a document, paper printout of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court further observed that secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, thus apparently again expressing the same view, which was propounded in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru (supra). The Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Another (supra) observed that production of scientific and electronic evidence in court as contemplated under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is of great help to the investigating agency and also to the prosecution. The Supreme Court highlighted the relevance of electronic evidence referring to its judgment in Mohd. Ajmat Amir Kasab Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 , Mumbai Terrorist Attack case, wherein production of transcripts of internet transactions helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving the guilt of the accused. Then the Supreme Court again reiterated the view propounded in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afsan Guru (supra) by observing that the links between the slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack were established only through phone call transcripts obtained from the mobile service providers. Relevant observations made in Para 24 and 25 of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: “24. With the advancement of information technology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the defendant. Electronic documents stricto sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65-A and 65-B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence. Section 65-A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65-B is complied with. The computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Section 65-A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65-B is complied with. The computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65-B makes admissible as a document, paper printout of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65-B. Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. PW-13 stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night in the CCTV camera, but he has not recorded the same in the case diary as nothing substantial to be adduced as evidence was present in it. 25. The production of scientific and electronic evidence in court as contemplated under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is of great help to the investigating agency and also to the prosecution. The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 , wherein production of transcripts of internet transactions helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 , the links between the slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack were established only through phone call transcripts obtained from the mobile service providers.” 29. Significantly, in the present case, Lakhan Singh (P.W.50), the Investigating Officer, has proved that he obtained call details of Cell Phone no. 9829095759, which was in the name of Vandana Vyas. Said call details were marked as H and H1 to H26. He also obtained call details of another cell phone of Vandana Vyas bearing no. 9929709997, which were marked I-1 to I-24. Further call details of mobile no. 9929709997 of Vandana Vyas were obtained and were marked from J-1 to J-31. Call details of mobile phone no. 9829778743 of Anoop Kumar Sharma were obtained and marked as L1 and L2. Similarly, call details of mobile phone no. 9950158533 of Anoop Kumar were also obtained and marked as M. Both mobile numbers were of accused Anoop Sharma. 30. 9929709997 of Vandana Vyas were obtained and were marked from J-1 to J-31. Call details of mobile phone no. 9829778743 of Anoop Kumar Sharma were obtained and marked as L1 and L2. Similarly, call details of mobile phone no. 9950158533 of Anoop Kumar were also obtained and marked as M. Both mobile numbers were of accused Anoop Sharma. 30. Ramjilal Bairwa (P.W.35), Nodal Officer of BSNL has proved that Superintendent of Police, East, Jaipur had demanded from him call details of mobile phone no. 9414204583 (mobile phone of deceased) along with name of its subscriber and its location between 7.00 P.M. and 9.25 P.M. on 20.05.2009. He stated that location of aforesaid number was found to be around Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. This witness proved call details marked as C and location was indicated therein from A to B place, which proved that throughout from 7.15 P.M. to 9.25 P.M., location of the deceased was near Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. 31. Saurabh Kumar (P.W.39), Nodal Officer, Bharti Hexacom Limited, Jaipur proved that he supplied call details and names of subscriber on the basis of e-mail received from Superintendent of Police, Jaipur. As per their record, mobile phone number 9950603918 was issued in the name of Bajrang Lal son of Mohan Lal on 04.06.2008, which was marked as D and call details whereof were marked E. He has also proved that mobile phone number 9829095759 was issued in the name of Vandana care of AV Enterprises and number 9929709997 was issued in the name of Vandana Vyas resident of C-Scheme, Jaipur. Call details of mobile no. 9829095759 were marked as H-1 to H-26 and call details of mobile no. 9929709997 were marked as I-1 to I-24. He stated that it is not specifically indicated therein that these call details were sent by him. These call details indicate that Bajrang called the deceased as many as four time in the evening from 5.38 P.M. to 6.40 P.M. where after, the deceased also called him at 7.08 P.M. and thereafter at 7.14 P.M. It is shown that the deceased also called Anoop Sharma at 8.57 P.M. and his elder brother Dr. These call details indicate that Bajrang called the deceased as many as four time in the evening from 5.38 P.M. to 6.40 P.M. where after, the deceased also called him at 7.08 P.M. and thereafter at 7.14 P.M. It is shown that the deceased also called Anoop Sharma at 8.57 P.M. and his elder brother Dr. Krishan Kumar Mangal at 9.01 and 9.07 P.M. Then a call is shown to have been made by the deceased to Anoop at 9.08 P.M. and to Vandana at 9.25 P.M. All these call details are apparently corroborated from the call details of accused Bajrang, Vandana and Anoop. However, in the absence of requisite certificate under Section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act, we can eschew these call details from consideration and have to analysis the other evidence on record to find whether such evidence is otherwise sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused-appellants. 32. Question whether or not the certified call details provided under signature of the authorised officer of the cell phone service provider, when proved by such officer in court, would be taken as proof of such calls without there being any additional certificate in terms of Section 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act, would for the present be taken as covered by Anvar P.V. (supra) as later judgment of the Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno & Another (supra) by a Bench of equal strength has not noticed earlier judgment in Anvar P.V. (supra). Apparent conflict between two judgments notwithstanding, till that conflict is resolved by a larger Bench, we shall have to proceed on the footing that the call details aforementioned cannot be taken as proved by mere production of Ramjilal Bairwa (P.W.35), Nodal Officer of BSNL and Sourabh Kumar (P.W.39), Nodal Officer of Bharat Hexacom Limited. 33. The prosecution, in the present case, has also sought to prove the extra judicial confession of Bajrang Lal, which he allegedly made to Balchand (P.W.23). This witness stated that he and his brother Suraj were working for Anoop for four years, who was a contractor. He did not pay their salary, therefore, they left his job. He then paid arrears of salary and therefore, they resumed the work with Anoop. At that time, he had his office at Amroodo Ka Bagh area. Apart from them, Guman and Rajveer were also working with Anoop. He then shifted his office to Jyoti Nagar. He did not pay their salary, therefore, they left his job. He then paid arrears of salary and therefore, they resumed the work with Anoop. At that time, he had his office at Amroodo Ka Bagh area. Apart from them, Guman and Rajveer were also working with Anoop. He then shifted his office to Jyoti Nagar. When he again defaulted in payment of salary, they left his job. He knew Bajrang Lal and met him in May, 2009 in Jaipur. Anoop called him (Balchand) to his office to collect his salary. When he went there, Anoop asked him to come after 4-5 days. Anoop gave him a sample to be delivered in Banipark office. He and Bajrang went on a motorcycle to deliver the sample. Bajrang Lal then told him that he should drop him at Railway Station. At that time, he noticed injury on one of his hands. When he enquired, Bajrang told that he had sustained injury due to skid of his motor cycle. There was a dispensary in Government Department where they delivered sample. Bajrang got his injury bandaged in that dispensary. When he again enquired from Bajrang as to how he sustained this injury, he said that he had a quarrel with Mangal in the previous night in Ankur Apartment and sustained the said injury. This witness later stated that Bajrang told him that he called Mangal for drink party in the office. At that time, Anoop, Vandana, Pushkar and Rakesh were also present there. Mangal died in the quarrel due to head injury by baseball bat. This witness even stated that he advised Bajrang that he should straightway go to the police station and disclose the entire incident. Then, he dropped Bajrang at railway station and went to his native. In cross-examination, this witness stated that Bajrang was resident of Teja Ka Bas, Phulera where he used to meet him often. He did not inform the police or anybody about this incident. He did not disclose this either to his family members or family members of Bajrang. His statement was recorded by police after one month, when police suddenly came to him at his native. In cross-examination, he also admitted that the police asked him to mention name of Mangal therefore he was mentioning his name. 34. Statement of Balchand (P.W.23) in view of his unnatural conduct cannot be relied for many reasons. His statement was recorded by police after one month, when police suddenly came to him at his native. In cross-examination, he also admitted that the police asked him to mention name of Mangal therefore he was mentioning his name. 34. Statement of Balchand (P.W.23) in view of his unnatural conduct cannot be relied for many reasons. Anoop and Vandana lastly ran office in Ankur Apartment in Jyoti Nagar and their another premise was in Flat No. 12-K-2, Jyoti Nagar, Housing Board, Jaipur. It has not been made clear that as to in which office this witness was called by Anoop. Obviously, if he was called after the incident had taken place, that place possibly would not be Ankur Apartment in which dead body was lying. It is nobody’s case that even after the incident, accused continued to run their office from Flat No. 12-K-2, Jyoti Nagar, Housing Board, Jaipur. Besides, silence of this witness for as long as one month raises serious doubt about his conduct. He did not disclose about this incident to police or to anyone else in his village. Moreover, in cross-examination, he stated that the police asked him to mention name of Mangal, therefore, he was making such statement. We, therefore, eschew evidence of extra judicial confession from our consideration. We, therefore, need not examine the argument that extra judicial confession of one accused cannot be read against another co-accused. 35. FSL Report (Exhibit P-93) has proved that wooden bat from packet A recovered at the instance of Bajrang Lal was containing stains of human blood of B group. Empty beer bottle and broken pieces of the bottle, which were used for attacking the deceased, were also found positive for presence of human blood of B group. This very report also proves that article 4, baniyan, article 5 shirt and article 6 pant, from packet marked I, were also found to contain human blood. While, baniyan and shirt were found to contain human blood of B group, but group of blood on pant Article 6 could not determined. Article 7, pant of Bajrang Lal recovered vide packet J was also found positive for presence of human blood. Article 8, cotton gauze was also found positive for presence of human blood. While, baniyan and shirt were found to contain human blood of B group, but group of blood on pant Article 6 could not determined. Article 7, pant of Bajrang Lal recovered vide packet J was also found positive for presence of human blood. Article 8, cotton gauze was also found positive for presence of human blood. FSL Report (Exhibit P-94) has proved that shirt and pant of Anoop as also iron rod and mobile recovered at his instance contained human blood of B group, which obviously is blood group of the deceased. Batter of gram flour (‘Besan ka ghol’) and viscera of the deceased as per FSL Report (Exhibit P-20) gave positive tests for the presence of a Banzodiazepine ranquilizing drug and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and insecticides. Viscera was also found positive for the presence of Ethyl Alcohol and gave negative test for methyl alcohol. This provides corroboration to the prosecution case that two wrappers of tablet namely Alprazolam recovered vide Exhibit P-30 in which three tablets were missing in a wrapper and two tablets missing from another wrapper, were mixed with batter of gram flour. Spot examination report of the team of SFSL (Exhibit P-61) further lends credence to the seizure of aforesaid two wrappers, wherein R.K. Chaturvedi (P.W.16), Senior Scientist Officer, State Forensic Mobile Unit, Jaipur has noted that two empty tablet wrappers-one bearing the description Alprazolam 0.25 mg were shown by Investigating Officer at the spot. He further noted that the Investigating Officer was advised to forward the blood samples from the disputed places, garments of the deceased, base-ball bat, tablet wrappers, cigarette buts, fry materials, wet ‘besan’ like material, garments of the suspects worn at the time of incident and other related exhibits to the FSL for detailed examination. 36. Contention that recovery of purse at the instance of Vandana (Exhibit P-18) and recovery of blood smeared clothes of accused Anoop (Exhibit P-17) were made quite belatedly on 09.11.2009 is noted to be rejected for the simple reason that accused till that time were absconding and could be arrested on 06.11.2009. Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was furnished by them on 09.11.2009 and thereafter such recoveries were made. Purse of the deceased recovered at the instance of Vandana from her rented room has been identified by wife of the deceased, Santosh Mangal (P.W.55) vide Exhibit P-46A. 37. Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was furnished by them on 09.11.2009 and thereafter such recoveries were made. Purse of the deceased recovered at the instance of Vandana from her rented room has been identified by wife of the deceased, Santosh Mangal (P.W.55) vide Exhibit P-46A. 37. Sumitra Sharma (P.W.34) has stated that she was residing as tenant in the house of Ajeet Singh and paying monthly rent of Rs. 4,500/-. She was engaged in the work of preparing credit cards and her office was also located in that house. Vandana came to her in 2009 for job, therefore, she knew her. Vandana told her that she was trading in supply of stationery items. They used her office for three days then vacated the same. Thereafter, Vandana came to her only once. This witness further stated that in 2008, she had taken this house on rent from Ajeet Singh and vacated the same in October, 2009. 38. Dr. R.K. Poonia (P.W.14) proved post mortem report (Exhibit P-49), according to which the deceased sustained the following injuries: (1) Head and face partially deformed with multiple fracture of face and head. Brain matter partially drained out, pieces of fracture bone out. There is multiple lacerated wound over face and head, who are overlapping each other and total 15 fifteen in number size varies from 1.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep to 8.9 cm x 2.3 cm x skull cavity deep. Margins are radish in colour with multiple contour lacerated would in brain radish in colour. (2) Deformity present over left wrist areas both bones fractured, blood extracted frontal side. (3) Abrasion over left gluten region over an areas 8cm x 5 cm pale colour-post mortem in nature. (4) Bruise over left knee in the size of 15cm x 3cm. 39. Dr. R.K. Poonia (P.W.14) stated that cause of death of the deceased was multiple injuries on head and face leading to damage of crania and cerebral, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On perusing FSL Report (Exhibit P-50), Dr. R.K. Poonia stated that in the viscera sent to FSL, presence of Banzodiazepine tranquilizing drug was found. Laxman Singh (P.W.22) has proved that country made pistol recovered at the instance of Anoop was serviceable and cartridge was alive. Kuldeep Ranka (P.W.44), the then Collector, Jaipur has proved letter of prosecution sanction against Anoop. 40. R.K. Poonia stated that in the viscera sent to FSL, presence of Banzodiazepine tranquilizing drug was found. Laxman Singh (P.W.22) has proved that country made pistol recovered at the instance of Anoop was serviceable and cartridge was alive. Kuldeep Ranka (P.W.44), the then Collector, Jaipur has proved letter of prosecution sanction against Anoop. 40. Satya Narain Sharma (P.W.29) has stated that he was owner of Scorpio bearing No. RJ01 UA 0758. He was known to Kailash, maternal uncle of Bajrang and through him, he also know Bajrang. Bajrang Lal borrowed from him Scorpio vehicle on 19.05.2009 on the pretext that his employer Anoop Sharma had to go to Jodhpur in connection with some urgent work. He said that they would return back till 4.00-5.00 P.M. When he did not return back till 6.00-7.00 P.M., Satya Narain telephoned him. Each time, Bajrang promised to return the vehicle in half an hour. Satya Narain Sharma then stated that his younger brother Shankar telephoned Satya Narain Sharma in the morning on 20.05.2009. His younger brother then went to Mahapura Road on motor cycle of Bajrang and brought back his Scorpio. At that time, Anoop Sharma and Bajrang both were sitting in Scorpio. Shankar Lal Sharma (P.W.30) has made similar statement that he went to Mahapura Road on motor cycle of Bajrang. Bajrang was not responding to his call. Lastly when he picked up his call, he had to tell him that either he should return the vehicle back or he would report the matter to police. It was thereafter that Bajrang called Shankar Lal, who went on his (Bajrang) motor cycle. Bajrang returned his Scorpio and took his motor cycle. At that time, Anoop was also with him. 41. Suresh Chandra (P.W.38) stated that he was resident of C-2, Saraswati Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. Dr. Krishan Kumar Mangal came to him in the morning on 21.05.2009 and told that his younger brother was missing. He accompanied him to Police Station Bajaj Nagar and lodged missing person report. On enquiry, his acquaintance in BSNL informed that location of mobile phone of Mukesh Kumar Mangal was around Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. He advised him for obtaining call details through police. Thereafter, they both went to Police Station Jalupura. Then, Arjun Lal, who was relative of Krishan Kumar Mangal went to BSNL office. On enquiry, his acquaintance in BSNL informed that location of mobile phone of Mukesh Kumar Mangal was around Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. He advised him for obtaining call details through police. Thereafter, they both went to Police Station Jalupura. Then, Arjun Lal, who was relative of Krishan Kumar Mangal went to BSNL office. Before that, SHO, Police Station Bajaj Nagar had already asked computer operator of his police station to send a formal letter of request for obtaining call details. By that time, letter did not reach BSNL office, therefore, they came back to police station and got a formal letter issued. Then they approached Superintendent of Police, East, Jaipur and obtained letter from him. This is how call details were obtained at the instance of the police. He went back to his house, but later in the night, he received call from Krishan Kumar Mangal, who informed that Mukesh Mangal has been murdered by Anoop, Vandana and Bajrang in Ankur Apartment. 42. Anil Khandelwal (P.W.40) stated that deceased Mukesh Mangal was known to him for last 20 years and he frequently used to visit his house. On 20.05.2009, when he was going from Income Tax Office, Lal Kothi to his office, Mukesh Mangal met him near PF office around 6-7 P.M., who was on motor cycle. When he enquired from him as to where he was going, Mukesh told him that he was waiting for Bajrang of Phulera and he was going to meet some officer with Bajrang. Abhishek Agarwal (P.W.43) and Puneet Garg (P.W.45) have been produced by the prosecution to state that when they telephoned the deceased in the evening on 20.05.2009, he told that he was with Bajrang, Anoop and Vandana and they were sitting in the residence of some officer and he would come back after sometime. Mahaveer Prasad (P.W.51) has proved that all the recovered article were received by him in sealed condition and were deposited in FSL in that condition. Rajesh Mangal (P.W.52) has proved that the deceased was general supplier of Kendriya Bhandar. His friend, Anil Khandelwal, who is chartered accountant, informed him that he saw deceased on 20.05.2009 at about 7.00 P.M. near Jyoti Nagar turn, where he was waiting for Bajrang, who was to take him for award of a contract. He talked to the deceased for about ten minutes and then left for his office. His friend, Anil Khandelwal, who is chartered accountant, informed him that he saw deceased on 20.05.2009 at about 7.00 P.M. near Jyoti Nagar turn, where he was waiting for Bajrang, who was to take him for award of a contract. He talked to the deceased for about ten minutes and then left for his office. Raghav Mangal (P.W.53) nephew of the deceased was with the deceased when he left for the market to purchase certain items. He stated that his uncle was receiving repeated phones calls. The deceased left him at residence and told that he was going for business purpose. 43. All the incriminating circumstances narrated herein above were put to the accused-appellants, but they failed to give any explanation thereabout. When all the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused in his/her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. calling upon him/her to furnish explanation but instead of giving explanation, if he/she chooses to maintain silence, the court would be entitled to draw adverse inference against the accused in accordance with law. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 9 . The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 2839 explaining the scope of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and considering the dual purpose made following observations: “Let us examine the essential features of this section and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments of this Court, which are the guiding factor for proper application and the consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simpliciter denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law.” 44. There is the other aspect of law to be kept in view while considering statement of the accused during his/her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. We may in this connection usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab – (2012) 11 SCC 768 , in which case it was held that if incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the accused, yet if he does not give any explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial, this can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances against him. Similarly in Munna Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174 , the Supreme Court held that examination of accused on such incriminating circumstances appearing against him serves twin purpose of accused. First purpose is to provide opportunity to accused to furnishing explanation on the circumstances appearing against him. If the accused denies the established facts, the court would then will be entitled to draw adverse inference against him. Secondly, if the accused remains silent to such circumstances or furnish false explanation when such circumstances are put to him, the conduct of the accused would entitle the court to tilt the case in favour of the prosecution. Similar view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka – (2012) 6 SCC 477 . Secondly, if the accused remains silent to such circumstances or furnish false explanation when such circumstances are put to him, the conduct of the accused would entitle the court to tilt the case in favour of the prosecution. Similar view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka – (2012) 6 SCC 477 . The Supreme court in Ravi Kapur vs. State Of Rajasthan – (2012) 9 SCC 284 , while considering the aforesaid aspect, observed as under:- “It is true that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. are not a mere formality or purposeless. They have a dual purpose to discharge, firstly, that the entire material parts of the incriminating evidence should be put to the accused in accordance with law and, secondly, to provide an opportunity to the accused to explain his conduct or his version of the case. To provide this opportunity to the accused is the mandatory duty of the Court. If the accused deliberately fails to avail this opportunity, then the consequences in law have to follow, particularly when it would be expected of the accused in the normal course of conduct to disclose certain facts which may be within his personal knowledge and have a bearing on the case.” 45. The Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343, in para 10 of the judgment, held as under:- “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence in of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and pendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused...” 46. The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra – (1984) 4 SCC 116 , held that before a case against an accused resting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established, following conditions must be fulfilled, 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 47. Each of the circumstances that we have noticed in earlier part of the judgment are not only distinctly proved but cumulatively, they also form a chain so complete consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those circumstances are not compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellants and point to their guilt because each of the circumstance so proved are of conclusive nature and excludes every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. The chain of circumstance proved against appellants is so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt consistent with their innocence. The circumstances so proved clearly show that in all probabilities the murder of Mukesh Kumar Mangal must have been committed by accused-appellants. It is trite that if the accused fails to explain the incriminating circumstances put to him/her during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this by itself may be a circumstance against him to supply missing link, if at all any, in the chain of circumstances. Despite some lacuna and contradictions made in the statements by the prosecution witnesses, the circumstances against the accused-appellants are sufficient to bring home their guilt and prove the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt. When all the circumstances are joined together, they form a complete chain of circumstances so as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellants. 48. When all the circumstances are joined together, they form a complete chain of circumstances so as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellants. 48. In view of above analysis in the light of law available on the subject, even after excluding the evidence of call details and extra judicial confession, charges against the accused appellants on the basis of evidence otherwise available on record are proved beyond reasonable doubt. While therefore not approving some of the findings recorded by the trial court, we are still persuaded to uphold impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. 49. In the result, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgment passed by the trial court is affirmed. 50. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected appeal.