JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgement dated 30.05.2013 by which the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Pradeep Singh @ Deepu @ Lagariya: U/s.364 IPC- ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s.394 IPC- ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s.302/34 IPC- life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s 201. IPC- three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment. Vijay Kumar and Ajeet Kumar : U/s.364 IPC- ten years rigorous imprisonment to each with a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each. U/s.394 IPC- ten years rigorous imprisonment to each with a fine of Rs.2000 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s.302/34 IPC- life imprisonment to each with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each. U/s.201 IPC- three years rigorous imprisonment to each with a fine of Rs.500 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case are that one Jagdish Prasad Sharma (PW10) lodged a missing person report with Police Station Muhana, District Jhunjhunu alleging therein that his driver Vijendra S/o Late Shri Jagdish Yadav, R/o Village Jai Singhpura, Aged about 26 years was missing with his vehicle (Scorpio) no. RJ18-UA-1210 since 3.00 pm the previous day i.e. 4.5.2009. On enquiry from the bus stand, it transpired that three persons had hired the vehicle from Buhana to Surajgarh at 3.00 pm on 4.5.2009. Vijendra had two mobile phones having nos. 9983852717 and 9829567681. However, on trying to contact him on there numbers, both were found to be switched off. Subsequently, the dead body of Vijendra was found from a well situated in agriculture field of Suresh Jat at Village Kasimpura. Police contacted the relatives of Vijendra. Vijendra had two mobile phones having nos. 9983852717 and 9829567681. However, on trying to contact him on there numbers, both were found to be switched off. Subsequently, the dead body of Vijendra was found from a well situated in agriculture field of Suresh Jat at Village Kasimpura. Police contacted the relatives of Vijendra. Thereafter his uncle Hari Singh submitted a written report to SHO Buhana alleging that three persons had hired the vehicle, of which Vijendra was driver at 3.00 pm on 4.5.2009 for going to Bisau. On further enquiry, it transpired that initially they approached Sanjay son of Sushma Nurse for hiring the vehicle. When Sanjay told that his vehicle was not available for hire, these persons met Vijendra. At that time, Randheer @ Dheera, driver of Sushma Nurse was standing there. He told that their age was between 25-30 years. One of them was wearing tops in his ears and they belonged to this area only and he could recognise them. Hari Singh has stated that these persons had murdered his nephew in Village Kasimpura, P.S. Bagad and thrown his dead body in the well of Suresh S/o Shri Ram. The owner of the well told that when water of well started giving stinking smell, cattle refused to consume such water. When they saw into the well through glass, a dead body became visible. The dead body was taken out of the well with the help of 15-20 people. Sarpanch of the village was informed, who in turn gave information to the SHO Police Station Bagad. The police on the basis of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused-appellants for offence under Sections 120B, 364, 394, 302, 201, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned trial court framed charges for offence under Sections 120B, 364, 394, 302, 201, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The accused-appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and got 75 documents exhibited. The accused-appellants in their defence did not produce any evidence, but exhibited 5 documents. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The accused-appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and got 75 documents exhibited. The accused-appellants in their defence did not produce any evidence, but exhibited 5 documents. The trial court on conclusion of the trial while acquitting the accused-appellants Ajeet Kumar for offence u/s.120B, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, accused-appellants Vijay Kumar and Pradeep Singh @ Deepu for offence u/s.120B, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and other accused Sanjay Kumar, Sumer Singh and Hanuman Singh for offence u/s.364, 394, 302, 201, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, convicted the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence these appeals. 4. Shri Rajesh Choudhary, learned amicus curiae has argued that the accused-appellants have been convicted only on the basis of evidence of last seen as well as recovery of `Scorpio’. It is submitted that Ranveer (PW6) and Ashok Sharma (PW11), who have been produced for evidence of last seen, are planted witnesses. Their statements are full of contradictions and they contradict with each other as well. The test identification parade has not been conducted. In fact, Ranveer (PW6) has categorically stated that police did not at all record his statement and that he has given statement on the basis of hearsay. 5. It is contended that the manner in which the vehicle has been recovered, raise a serious doubt about the genuineness of the recovery. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the statement of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (PW10) and has stated that on the day of recovery, police informed him that they would conduct barricading for intercepting the vehicle passing on the road. The barricading was done near Kajla Ka Bas. He was made to sit under a tree around 100 yards away from the road and about 10 vehicles have passed whereafter his vehicle came near at about 1.00 pm. Police called him 15-20 minutes after intercepting the vehicle and enquired from him whether this was his vehicle. Then they came to Buhana Police Station. It is contended that no site plan was prepared for such a recovery. The recovery of scorpio vehicle has been shown jointly at the instance of both accused Ajeet Kumar and co-accused Sanjay Kumar vide Ex.P21. Then they came to Buhana Police Station. It is contended that no site plan was prepared for such a recovery. The recovery of scorpio vehicle has been shown jointly at the instance of both accused Ajeet Kumar and co-accused Sanjay Kumar vide Ex.P21. However, the independent witness of recovery Rajendra Prasad has not been produced in the Court. 6. Shri Rajesh Choudhary, learned amicus curiae submitted that the manner in which the vehicle has been shown to have been recovered, clearly reflect falsity on the part of the prosecution. It is argued that as per the prosecution, certain hair were found in the hands of the deceased, which were recovered vide memo Ex.P7 and marked as `A’. The hair of the deceased was also recovered vide Ex.P7 and marked as `B’. At the same time, the hair of head of the accused Ajeet Kumar was recovered vide Ex.P45 and marked as `H’. FSL report (Ex.P56) relied by learned trial court does not prove anything against the accused. All that has been stated therein is that on morphological and microscopic examination, all the three sets of hair were found to be of human origin. Learned amicus curiae for the accused-appellants submitted that without DNA sampling being done, it could not be established definitely that the hair found in the hands of the accused were that of the accused or of deceased himself. However, in this case, no DNA sampling was done. Therefore, the finding of FSL that probability of similarity between hair marked `A’ found in the hands of the deceased and hair of the accused marked `H’ could not be ruled out, is vague, uncertain and is not definite. This, thus, cannot be held to be proved circumstance against the accused-Ajeet Kumar. Learned amicus curiae thus submitted that the evidence of recovery and the FSL report cannot be believed and relied for sustaining conviction of accused-appellants. 7. Learned amicus curiae has argued that the prosecution has shown recovery of electric wire at the instance of Vijay Kumar vide Ex.P39. This electric wire cannot be connected with the dead body as no ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased. Dr.Narendra Singh Naruka (PW3) has categorically stated that he did not find any ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. He has cited the article `Ligature Mark on Neck: How Informative?’ by Dr. This electric wire cannot be connected with the dead body as no ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased. Dr.Narendra Singh Naruka (PW3) has categorically stated that he did not find any ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. He has cited the article `Ligature Mark on Neck: How Informative?’ by Dr. B.R. Sharma and submitted that ligature mark on the neck is of crucial diagnostic importance and requires detailed inspection with regard to its course, depth and width. According to him, even if the dead body was lying in the well for 5 days, it would not cause ligature mark to disappear if at all they were there. 8. Shri Rajesh Choudhary, learned amicus curiae has argued that Shivraj Singh (PW7) has stated that he sold the black colour mobile phone of rainbow company with SIM card to deceased and yet retained the box of the mobile phone for as long as three months, cannot be believed. The recovery of empty box of mobile was made vide Ex.P11. The police has deliberately shown recovery of nokia mobile vide Ex.P27 from the possession of accused Ajeet Kumar and one black colour mobile set at the instance of accused Pradeep Kumar vide Ex.P41 to maximize the number of accused. It is contended that the recovery of mobile handset of Nokia has not been believed even by the trial court, which is evident from the discussion made at para 24 of the judgement. Learned amicus curiae therefore submitted that the accused-appellants, therefore cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of last seen. He in support of his arguments has relied on the judgement of Delhi High Court in Ashok Singh vs. State, Criminal Appeal No.259/1998 dated 12.07.2012. 9. Dr. Shivendra S. Rathore, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Pradeep Singh @ Deepu @ Lagariya submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated. Originally, the case set up by the prosecution at the stage of investigation into the Missing Person Report was that only two persons had hired the vehicle, but subsequently, the prosecution sought to improve upon the case by alleging that, in fact, there were three persons. Originally, the case set up by the prosecution at the stage of investigation into the Missing Person Report was that only two persons had hired the vehicle, but subsequently, the prosecution sought to improve upon the case by alleging that, in fact, there were three persons. Reference in this behalf is made to the statement (Ex.D4) of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (PW10) during investigation of Missing Person Report to argue that when he was confronted with Part-A and B of that statement where he stated that on his enquiry, it transpired that only two persons hired vehicle, he could not give any satisfactory explanation except saying that it was roughly recorded in it. In fact, he has stated that there were three mobile handsets with the driver and number of these were given by him to the police, but why police did not mention all three of them in his statement Ex.D4, he could not explain. 10. Learned counsel has also submitted that Ashok Sharma (PW11) being son-in-law of Jagdish is a planted witness. Even otherwise, he has claimed to be a chance witness that when on 4.5.2009 he was returning back from SBBJ Bank of Buhana and reached near Buhana Hospital, he saw scorpio of his father-in-law near the hospital, which was being driven by Vijendra Yadav. He stopped the vehicle and on enquiry by him, the driver informed him that he was going to Bisau and that his master Jagdishji had gone to Narnaul and that this witness should inform him on return that the keys of the shop are with Jakir Teli. This witness has been made to say that at that time, there were three persons sitting in the vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that in cross examination, this witness has stated that his statement was recorded by the police first on 9.5.2009 and second on 16.5.2009. While statement dated 16.5.2009 was on record, the statement dated 9.5.2009 was missing. It is argued that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for not producing that statement and it should be assumed that therein he mentioned about only two persons hiring the vehicle. That statement according to learned counsel was recorded during the investigation into the MPR. 11. It is argued that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for not producing that statement and it should be assumed that therein he mentioned about only two persons hiring the vehicle. That statement according to learned counsel was recorded during the investigation into the MPR. 11. Learned counsel in this connection also made reference to statement of Raju (PW9), another vehicle owner, who was approached by Vijay Kumar for hiring the vehicle, however ultimately his vehicle was not hired. He has stated that when he came to Pacheri Mod, Ajeet and Vijay met him around 1.30 PM and told that they hired another vehicle. At that time, these two persons were not accompanied by accused Pradeep. Learned counsel argued that accused-appellant Pradeep was having polio in one of his legs, which fact has been mentioned in his arrest memo Ex.P49. The witnesses of last seen namely; Ranveer (PW6) and Bhag Chand Bhadal (PW19) in their statement have not mentioned about the identification mark and physiognomy of accused. It could have been quite easy for them to state that one of the three accused, who hired the vehicle, had a limping in one leg. This having not been stated, it should be assumed that accused-appellant was not present at the time of incident. 12. It is submitted that the two mobile handsets recovered at the instance of accused-appellant has not been identified by anyone including Shivraj Singh (PW7), who sold one of the mobile to the Bijendra (PW8) with whom one of the mobile hand set was left for the purpose of charging. Even the vehicle owner Jagdish Prasad Sharma (PW10), the uncle of the informant has also not identified it. The recovery of mobile handset became doubtful also for the reason that no mobile handset has been recovered from the same house. The mobile handset of rainbow company has been recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Pradeep Singh vide memo Ex.P41. Another mobile set was of NKTEL, which has not been relied by the trial court and accused Sumer Singh was acquitted. 13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that even witness Raju has mentioned that when he came to Pacheri Mod, he met only Ajeet and Vijay. Ajeet told him that they hired a bolero vehicle and this witness also did not name Pradeep. The accused-appellant Pradeep is therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that even witness Raju has mentioned that when he came to Pacheri Mod, he met only Ajeet and Vijay. Ajeet told him that they hired a bolero vehicle and this witness also did not name Pradeep. The accused-appellant Pradeep is therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has cited the judgements in Nizam & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan-2015 (2) WLC (SC) Cri.605, Kailash & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan-2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 684, Ram Narayan & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan-2008 (1) R.Cr.D 260 (Raj.) and Mahendra Singh vs. the State of Rajasthan-2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 523. 14. Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Gajanand Yadav and Shri Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgments. They submitted that the accused-appellants have been rightly convicted on the basis of evidence available on record. Learned counsels referred to the statement of prosecution witnesses and various exhibits of prosecution in support of their arguments, which shall be referred to at the appropriate place hereinafter. 15. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 16. At the outset, we may observe that we are not inclined to countenance the argument that Jagdish Prasad (PW10) when initially set up the case told that only two persons had hired the vehicle. This become clear from perusal of the MPR (Ex.P12) itself wherein he has stated that on his enquiry from persons at the bus stand, it transpired that three persons had hired his vehicle from Buhana to Surajgarh and that his driver Vijendra was missing with the vehicle from 4.5.2009 at about 3.00 PM. This MPR was lodged on 5.5.2009 and statement Ex.D4 was recorded on 5.5.2009 during investigation. In that report, mentioning of two persons would not change the complexion of the prosecution case. The prosecution at all the stages of investigation and during trial throughout maintained the involvement of three persons. In fact, when Jagdish Prasad Sharma (PW10) was confronted with statement recorded u/s.161 (Ex.D4), he has stated that it has wrongly been stated that two persons hired the vehicle. He in fact, told the police that three persons hired the vehicle. The prosecution at all the stages of investigation and during trial throughout maintained the involvement of three persons. In fact, when Jagdish Prasad Sharma (PW10) was confronted with statement recorded u/s.161 (Ex.D4), he has stated that it has wrongly been stated that two persons hired the vehicle. He in fact, told the police that three persons hired the vehicle. The defence has not confronted this witness with his statement recorded u/s.161 to contend that even during investigation of the FIR, he mentioned two persons, rather than three, hired the vehicle. Had it been so, the defence would have certainly confronted him with his statement. Therefore, in absence of this, this court has to proceed on the footing that the statement, which he made before the Court as PW10, was consistent with what he stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation to the police. 17. In this case, in the test identification parade, all the three witnesses initially when produced by the police for proving the evidence of last seen i.e. Ranveer Singh (PW6), Bijendra (PW8) and Ashok Sharma (PW11) have consistently maintained about the role of three persons. Ranveer Singh (PW6) was first and foremost of these three. He has proved the memo of test identification parade (Ex.P9), wherein he identified accused-appellants Vijay Kumar and Pradeep Kumar and also identified Ajeet Kumar vide memo Ex.P10. He has stated that he was present at the bus stand at about 2.30 pm on 4.5.2009 when the accused came there to hire a vehicle. He then correctly identified all the three accused. This witness has been subjected to intensive cross examination by the defence and has remained unshaken. Though, he has stated that he had to twice go to attend the test identification parade on 18.6.2009 and 30.6.2009, but he has denied the suggestion that the accused was shown to him in the Court or in the police station. Ashok Sharma (PW11) has also proved Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 and has stated that he correctly identified all the three accused in the test identification parade. He has stated that deceased met him near hospital on 4.5.2009 when he was returning from SBBJ Bank. Ashok Sharma (PW11) has also proved Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 and has stated that he correctly identified all the three accused in the test identification parade. He has stated that deceased met him near hospital on 4.5.2009 when he was returning from SBBJ Bank. He saw the scorpio of his father-in-law being driven by driver Vijendra, who stopped and told that he was going to Bisau and that he (PW11) should inform his master (employer) that the key of the shop was given by him to Zakir Teli. This witness has categorically stated that at that time three persons were sitting in the vehicle; one was on the front seat and two were on the rear seat. They were in the age group of 20-25 years. This witness has correctly identified all three accused. Even this witness has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but he remained unshaken. Merely because he has stated that his statement were recorded twice on 9.5.2009 and 16.5.2009 by the police and one of his statement was not on record, cannot be a reason to infer that in the other statement, he would have mentioned about only two persons rather than three as those hiring the vehicle. Although, it is quite possible that his statement might have been recorded by the police during investigation of the MPR, but there was nothing, which prevented the defence from producing either of those statements or confronting the accused with the another statement or like wise produce that statement in defence. However, in the statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. dated 16.5.2009, he has stated that he saw three persons sitting in the vehicle, which stand was consistent with what he has stated in the Court. The test identification parade of the accused was conducted with reference to identification of their faces by the witnesses when the accused were made to stand with other person of somewhat similar physiognomy and not by making them walk. Therefore, this cannot be accepted as favourable factor for anyone of the accused. 18. In view of the overwhelming evidence otherwise on record, the manner of recovery of the scorpio vehicle may not be a reason to discard the entire prosecution case. Therefore, this cannot be accepted as favourable factor for anyone of the accused. 18. In view of the overwhelming evidence otherwise on record, the manner of recovery of the scorpio vehicle may not be a reason to discard the entire prosecution case. Moreover, the vehicle was made to recover, is a fact borne out by the memo of recovery and this vehicle was the one, which was with the accused and led to the unfortunate loss of a human life. In fact, the accused before they hired the vehicle of the deceased not only approached Ranveer (PW6), but also Raju (PW9), whose testimony is also quite significant for tilting the balance in favour of the prosecution. He has stated that he had a safari vehicle. Vijay Kumar came to him at about 8-9.00 am on 4.5.2009. He wanted to hire the vehicle for going to Bisau. He showed him a piece of paper, in which it was indicated that the vehicle was to go from Chaurodi to Bisau at the residence of Maan Jat. Name of Ajeet was written at the bottom of the piece of paper. This witness when enquired from Vijay about this Ajeet, he told that he was the one, who had recently produced a haryanvi elbum, whereupon this witness has stated that Ajeet was native of the same village, to which he belonged. Then Vijay Kumar did tell him that he would talk to Ajeet and let him know and thereafter he did not return. This witness then further stated that when he came to Pacheri Mod at about 1.30 pm, Ajeet and Vijay met him. On enquiry, Ajeet told him that they had already hired a Bolero vehicle of someone from Kalakheri. He has stated that when he went to the house of Vijendra on 14-15, he learnt that his vehicle was hired by certain persons on 4th for going to Bisau. He doubted the role of Ajeet and, therefore, went to his house and enquired as to whose vehicle he has hired on that day. Ajeet again reiterated that he had hired bolero vehicle of someone from village Kalakheri and also additionally stated that the police from Police Station Buhana had also enquired from him about this. The doubt in the mind of this witness persisted. Ajeet again reiterated that he had hired bolero vehicle of someone from village Kalakheri and also additionally stated that the police from Police Station Buhana had also enquired from him about this. The doubt in the mind of this witness persisted. He went to taxi stand and enquired whether any bolero vehicle was booked for Bilau owned by someone belonging to village Kalakheri on 4th, there was none. This witness has then stated that he went to Mahendra Singh, SHO Police Station Buhana and asked him whether he has enquired from Ajeet, whereupon SHO stated that he did not make any such enquiry from Ajeet. In fact, this witness has stated that he asked Ajeet to give CD of his elbum, whereupon Ajeet stated that he suffered loss in that and therefore the doubt of this witness also compounded. 19. We are not inclined to countenance with the argument of learned counsel for the accused-appellant that since only Ajeet and Vijay met Raju, it should be accepted that only two accused were involved and not third accused. This is because the vehicle was actually hired by them after 2.30 pm around 3.00. Moreover, the fact that Ajeet made a false statement to Raju not only about the kind of vehicle, which they hired as they actually hired the scorpio vehicle and he told him that they had hired bolero vehicle, but also about the native place of its owner. While Ajeet told Raju that the bolero vehicle they hired was owned by someone from village Kalakhari, whereas the owner of the scorpio vehicle which was actually hired and looted by them, belonged to Jagdish, who is resident of Mehrana. This clearly shows that he with guilty mind was trying to deliberately mislead Raju. Moreover, no question was put in cross examination to any of the witnesses of last seen i.e. Ranveer (PW6), Raju (PW9) and Ashok Sharma (PW11) that there were two persons and not three persons. Therefore, such a defence cannot be allowed to be developed at the stage of appeal. 20. So far as the recovery of mobile handsets from Ajeet Kumar and Sumer Singh are concerned, they may not have been believed by the trial court because it could not be proved by any other corroborating evidence that these handsets belonged to deceased. Therefore, such a defence cannot be allowed to be developed at the stage of appeal. 20. So far as the recovery of mobile handsets from Ajeet Kumar and Sumer Singh are concerned, they may not have been believed by the trial court because it could not be proved by any other corroborating evidence that these handsets belonged to deceased. But the recovery of rainbow mobile handset at the instance of Pradeep vide Ex.P41 has been held to be proved because this finds corroboration with the testimony of Shivraj (PW7) and Bijendra (PW8). Shivraj has proved that he sold this mobile handset to the deceased. Bijendra Singh has also stated that he knew Vijendra (deceased), who was resident of Jaisinghpura. He came to him at his shop around 1.30 pm on 4.5.2009 and left his mobile handset for charging. He returned after about one hour in his scorpio vehicle no. RJ18-UA-1210 to collect his mobile handsets. At that time, three persons were sitting in the vehicle and the vehicle went towards Surajgarh. In cross examination, he has stated that though he did not have the charger of rainbow company, but deceased brought his own charger for the purpose of charging. 21. Contention that recovery of electric cable from Vijay Kumar vide Ex.P39 does not prove that it was used in strangulating the deceased because no ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, is noted to be rejected for the simple reason that the dead body of the deceased in this case could be recovered five days after incident. The postmortem report (Ex.P5) of deceased Vijendra has been proved by Dr. Narendra Singh Naruka (PW3). Therein, the cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation and the duration of death was indicated to be 3-5 days of examination. The postmortem report states as under:- “1. Whole body is swollen & discolored. 2. Maggots are present. 3. The Abdomen is more distended. 4. Whole skin of body is bleeding of cuticle. 5. Both eye bolls are prominent. 6. Tongue is swollen, turbid & slightly protrude. 7. There is mark of laceration wound on right wrist & down 1/5 part of forearm near wrist. 8. The hair & nails are loose & all tissues are soften & discolored. 9. There is no putrifcation of soft tissues. 10. 5. Both eye bolls are prominent. 6. Tongue is swollen, turbid & slightly protrude. 7. There is mark of laceration wound on right wrist & down 1/5 part of forearm near wrist. 8. The hair & nails are loose & all tissues are soften & discolored. 9. There is no putrifcation of soft tissues. 10. There is congestion on anterior muscles of neck on exploration the neck vessels shown the congestion. 11. There is no fracture of skull on exploration. The brain matter shown the congestion slightly.” 22. Dr. Narendra Singh Naruka (PW3) has stated that on opening of the skull, no fracture was found, but the brain matter was found congested. All tissues were soft and discoloured. This was specifically asked from him in the cross examination or defence whether ligature were visible. In answer to this, he has stated that there was swelling all around the neck, therefore, no such marks could be seen. In view of the fact that the dead body could be located five days after the incident and all this time it was lying drowned in the water of well, therefore, in the postmortem obviously to take place thereafter, absence of ligature mark would not cause any dent to the prosecution case. Although, it may be true that the ligature mark on the neck is of crucial diagnostic importance with regard to its depth and width, as has been argued by learned amicus curiae with the help of the paper titled “ligature mark on neck: how informative?”, but this will depend upon the facts of a given case. Since in the present case, admittedly, the postmortem of the dead body took place five days after the incident, we are not persuaded to accept this argument. The cited judgements are distinguishable on facts as well as law. In the light of the analysis of the evidence, we find that the chain of circumstance against the accused is so complete as to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as rule out every single possibility of the accused-appellant being innocent. All the circumstances point towards them as the perpetrator of crime and none else. 23. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned trial court. All the circumstances point towards them as the perpetrator of crime and none else. 23. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned trial court. No case is made out for interference in the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. Both the appeals are dismissed. 24. Office to place a copy of this judgement in each connected file.