Judgment Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), on behalf of four accused-appellants, namely, (1) Kailash Chand S/o Shri Megharam, (2) Megharam S/o Shri Kesharam, (3) Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Shri Vidyadhar and (4) Smt. Manju Devi W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, challenges the judgment and order dated 24.01.2009 of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Sikar, in Sessions Case No.50/2008, whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as follows:- Accused-appellants Conviction under Section Sentence (1) Kailash Chand S/o Shri Megharam, (2) Megharam S/o Shri Kesharam, (3) Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Shri Vidyadhar and (4) Smt. Manju Devi W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, 302/34 IPC Each to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment 342 IPC Each to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment 201 IPC Each to undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo three months’ additional simple imprisonment 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Mahaveer Singh (PW-27), the then S.H.O., Police Station Laxmangarh, received a telephonic message, which was entered in the ‘rojnamcha’ report (Exhibit P-42A) on 11.11.2007 at 8:00 AM, to the effect that one dead body was lying near Government Secondary School, Ghassu. On receipt thereof, Mahaveer Singh (PW-27), accompanied by other police personnel, reached near the Government Secondary School, Ghassu, on National Highway No.11, where they found a dead body of unknown person lying ten feet away from the road. After that, Mahaveer Singh (PW-27) sent a report (Exhibit P-43) to the Police Station through Constable Sheeshram (PW-9). On the basis of the said report, the police registered F.I.R. No.313/2007 for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) with Police Station Laxmangarh, and commenced investigation. The police prepared ‘panchnama’ on 11.11.2007 at 12:50 PM vide Exhibit P- 12 as also site plan (Exhibit P-11). One ‘rajai khol’ (quilt cover) was also found there. Bahadur Singh (PW-5), Nemichand (PW-6), Sarwan Singh (PW-7) and Banwari (PW-8) were the attesting witnesses of ‘panchnama’ and the site plan. The police prepared ‘panchnama’ on 11.11.2007 at 12:50 PM vide Exhibit P- 12 as also site plan (Exhibit P-11). One ‘rajai khol’ (quilt cover) was also found there. Bahadur Singh (PW-5), Nemichand (PW-6), Sarwan Singh (PW-7) and Banwari (PW-8) were the attesting witnesses of ‘panchnama’ and the site plan. The postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased at 11:30 AM on 13.11.2007 vide Exhibit P-19 by the Medical Board consisting of Dr. Devendra Dadhich (PW-13) and Dr. Gangadhar Thalod (PW- 14), wherein the cause of death was opined to be strangulation. After the postmortem, clothes of the deceased were seized vide Exhibit P-15 in presence of attesting witnesses, namely, constable Pyarelal (PW-8) and constable Sheeshram (PW-9). Dead body of the deceased was identified by Nihal Singh, Smt. Manju and Hardayal on 14.11.2007. The accused-appellant Kailash was arrested on 17.11.2007 vide Exhibit P-25, accused-appellant Smt. Bhanwari was arrested vide Exhibit P-46, accused-appellant Smt. Manju was arrested vide Exhibit P-47 and accused-appellant Megharam was arrested vide Exhibit P-27 from different places. After completion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet for offence under Sections 302, 342, 404, 201 and 120-B IPC. Charges were framed for offence under Section 302, in alternative Section 302/34, and also under Sections 342, 201, 404 and 120-B of the IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced as many as 31 witnesses and exhibited documents from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P- 71A in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence examined Dr. N.L. Disaniya as DW-1 and produced five documents from Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court has though acquitted the appellants of the charges of offence under Section 404 and 120-B of the IPC, vide the impugned judgment but convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. 3. Mr. Biri Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, for accused-appellants, argued that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are contrary to the facts and material on record and therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The learned trial court has failed to consider omissions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and simply considered the evidence, which was tendered by the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court has failed to consider omissions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and simply considered the evidence, which was tendered by the prosecution witnesses. Sitaram (PW-2) and Banshilal (PW-3), who have claimed to be neighbours of accused-appellants Kailash and Smt. Bhanwari Devi as their houses are situated in Shiv Colony, Nagaur, have made false statements in so far as accused-appellants Kailash and Smt. Bhanwari Devi are concerned. It was not possible for anyone to identify Megharam, father of Smt. Bhanwari and Manju, because Megharam is resident of village Rinua, Police Station Sadar Fatehpur, District Sikar. Manju, who is wife of deceased Mukesh, used to stay with her husband at Jaipur and at times, in his native village Badusar, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar, or with her parents in village Rinau. Learned Senior Counsel, in this respect, referred to statement of Nihal Singh (PW-12), father of the deceased Mukesh and father-in-law of accused Manju, and argued that according to his statement not only Manju was in consistent touch with them, but also was staying with them in their residence at Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, and went with them to attend a ceremony at inlaw’s place of the sister of the deceased and also returned back with the father-in-law (this witness) from village Rinau to Jaipur on 11.11.2007. Learned Senior Counsel argued that these witnesses could have had no occasion to identify the accused as it was a dark night of Diwali and there was no source of light in the colony, which was hardly developed, as most of the plots were lying vacant. This witness admitted that Mukesh, who was working in a ‘saari’ shop as a Sales Supervisor, refused to accompany them to native place on the pretext that his employer would not grant him leave because of the ongoing festive season of Diwali, where the sale was comparatively more. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to have left for Ajmer without even informing the family. His dead body was not found around Nagaur but was in village Ghassu, which was close to his native Badusar. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to have left for Ajmer without even informing the family. His dead body was not found around Nagaur but was in village Ghassu, which was close to his native Badusar. Since the place from where dead body was recovered was already known to the police, the information (Exhibit P-61) obtained from the accused Megharam regarding the place and the site plan (Exhibit P-30) prepared on that basis, cannot be read in evidence against the accused as they did not lead to discovery of any new fact. 4. It is argued that recovery of passport and Cheque book of the deceased from Manju vide information memo (Exhibit P-7) vide a recovery memo Exhibit P-33 is hardly a circumstance against her. She, being wife of the deceased, could have naturally retained his passbook and Cheque book. Statement of Banshilal (PW-3) is that in the night of Diwali at around 9:00-9:30 PM Mukesh rushed towards the road when the accused were beating Mukesh. All the accused chased him and brought him back. This witness further stated that in the night also they heard the sound of ‘maar-peet’ coming therefrom. Similar statement of Banshilal (PW-3) that the body of Mukesh was put by the accused on the rear seat of Maruti-800 is also hardly reliable. In crossexamination, this witness failed to explain as to why he did not say so to the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-1). Rather this witness has stated that there were 3-4 cots lying vacant in the house of Kailash and that he did not ever visit their house. He stated that he was mentioning name of Megharam because Shivjiram told him. This witness has also admitted that he did not inform the police that the accused told them that it was their internal matter. This witness stated that it is wrong to say that there is boundary wall of 8 feet height around the house of the accused and it was not possible for anyone to see any occurrence taking place inside their house. In the course statement, this witness has stated that Bhanwari, Kailash and Megharam were carrying Mukesh in the car. Thus, he himself excluded Manju. In the course statement, this witness has stated that Bhanwari, Kailash and Megharam were carrying Mukesh in the car. Thus, he himself excluded Manju. It is therefore argued that it could not have been possible for this witness or any other witness to see the incident of ‘maar-peet’ with deceased allegedly taken place inside their house. Shivjiram (PW-4) has turned hostile as far as accused Kailash is concerned and supported the case of the prosecution against other accused. This witness has thereby rendered himself unreliable. He has made lot of improvement in his version given to the police in Exhibit P-10. Both, Banshilal (PW-3) and Shivjiram (PW-4), are planted witnesses and cannot be relied on. 5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that there is evidence to the effect that Mukesh travelled from Jaipur to Nagaur. Mahesh Kumar (PW-16), Pawan Kumar (PW-19) and Dheeraj Singh (PW-20), who were the friends of the deceased, have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Nihal Singh (PW-12), father-in-law, and Banarsi Devi (PW-24), mother-in-law of Manju, both have stated that conduct of Manju, while she used to stay with them, was good and she fulfilled all the marital obligations with her husband. Only because she insisted on going to her parent’s house on Diwali, that she picked up an argument with her mother-in-law while demanding her ornaments but this cannot be a reason to presume that she had conspired murder of her husband. It is argued that recovery of two ATM cards and one bus ticket marked as Exhibit P-53 from the house of Kailash and Bhanwari, at the instance of Kailash, and the recovery of a wooden piece marked ‘G’ provides vide seizure memo (Exhibit P- 6) from the basement of their house, does not prove anything against them. In the FSL report (Exhibit P-65), though this wooden piece was found to have contained blood but the blood group could not be ascertained, therefore, this cannot be made basis to convict the deceased. In the FSL report (Exhibit P-65), though this wooden piece was found to have contained blood but the blood group could not be ascertained, therefore, this cannot be made basis to convict the deceased. The allegation that accused Kailash had purchased three stamp papers from stamp vendor Zakir Hussain (PW-30) and photo copy of his stamp register on record as Exhibit P-45 to show that accused Kailash purchased three stamp papers in the name of deceased Mukesh to get divorce papers prepared from him, so that he could be forced to divorce Manju, is hardly a circumstance against the accused because no one can in this manner get divorce by signing the stamp papers. The Maruti Car, which was allegedly used for transporting dead body of deceased Mukesh, recovered vide recovery memo Exhibit P-26, was not found to contain any incriminating material such as the blood mark or any other belongings of the deceased. Recovery of ash of the shirt of the deceased and the rope, which was allegedly used for murdering him at the instance of Smt. Bhanwari also does not prove her involvement in the crime. 6. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and argued that the guilt of the accused-appellants has been proved by overwhelming evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to the statements of Banshilal (PW-3) and Shivjiram (PW-4), who have categorically proved involvement of the accused. Even if Shivjiram (PW-4) has turned hostile for one of the accused, but when his evidence is read with the evidence of Banshilal (PW-3) as also Dharmendra Bainda (PW-26), clearly proves the charge of murder against the accused. It is therefore submitted that merely because Parmeshwawri (PW-1) and Sitaram (PW-2) have turned hostile, finding of conviction recorded against the accused-appellants can be sustained on the testimony of Banshilal (PW-3), Shivjiram (PW-4) and Dharmendra Bainda (PW- 26). That apart, recovery of wooden piece from the basement at the instance of Kailash and Smt. Bhanwari Devi from their house is clinching evidence because it was containing human blood as per the FSL report. Besides, two ATM cards and one passbook as also bus ticket of the deceased from Jaipur to Ajmer for travelling on 08.11.2007 and one cotton bandage also proved the complicity of the accused. The Maruti Car was recovered from accused Kailash in presence of Praveen Kumar (PW-21) and Chetram (PW- 29). 7. Besides, two ATM cards and one passbook as also bus ticket of the deceased from Jaipur to Ajmer for travelling on 08.11.2007 and one cotton bandage also proved the complicity of the accused. The Maruti Car was recovered from accused Kailash in presence of Praveen Kumar (PW-21) and Chetram (PW- 29). 7. It is also contended that Dharmendra Bainda (PW-26) has in examination-in-chief fully supported the case of the prosecution and in fact his statement was recorded on 17.10.2008 on the basis of his own application given to the court on 17.10.2008 (Exhibit P-39), in which he has alleged that the accused persons were pressurizing him to give statement favourable to them and were trying to intermediate him. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 17.10.2008 and on that date the counsel for the defence requested for time and the matter was adjourned at that state for 21.10.2008, on which date in the cross-examination he stated that he gave his statement on 17.10.2008 under pressure. Learned trial court rightly initiated against him proceedings under Section 193 of the I.P.C. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and minutely scanned the material on record. 9. The written report in the present case was submitted on 11.11.2007 by one Mahaveer Singh, the then Station House Officer, Police Station Laxmangarh. The dead body of the deceased was found ten feet away from the Government Secondary School, Ghassu, on the Sikar-Laxmangarh National Highway 11 towards its western side. The description of clothes has been mentioned in the inquest report. Nihal Singh (PW-12), father of the deceased, has stated that he was employee of Central Public Works Department of the Government of India. He was staying in the official residential accommodation allotted to him in Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. He stated that along-with him, his son Mukesh, his wife (daughter-in-law) Manju and grandson were also staying therein. Mukesh was working as Sales Supervisor with Janak Nandni Saari Centre, Jaipur. On 03.11.2007, he along-with Manju (wife of his son Mukesh) and grandson Akarshak came from Jaipur to Sikar by train and then they went to village Badusar. Mukesh refused to accompany them saying that due to festive season of Diwali, his employer would not permit him to avail leave. Mukesh told that Manju would return back to Jaipur on 07.11.2007. On 03.11.2007, he along-with Manju (wife of his son Mukesh) and grandson Akarshak came from Jaipur to Sikar by train and then they went to village Badusar. Mukesh refused to accompany them saying that due to festive season of Diwali, his employer would not permit him to avail leave. Mukesh told that Manju would return back to Jaipur on 07.11.2007. They went to village Biramsar on the occasion of ‘chhuchak’, a customary function on the birth of a male child to his daughter Manju and other members of her family also accompanied them and then they returned back. He alleged that his wife asked Manju to help her clean the house on the festival of Diwali. Manju quarrelled with her and rather demanded her ornaments and said that she wanted to go to the village of her parents at Rinau. His wife did not give her ornaments. Thereupon, Manju threatened that if she did not give the ornaments, Manju would see that she (his wife) would not properly celebrate the Diwali festival. Then this witness told Manju to go to Jaipur on 07.11.2007. Manju went to her parents house with her son Akarshak. Mukesh lastly contacted him on phone on 05.11.2007. Manju made a phone call on 11.11.2007 at 5 O’Clock to his neighbour Birbal and talked to him. She said that she so far had not gone to Jaipur and that she (11 of 21) [CRLA-143 / 2009] had taken permission from Mukesh to stay with her parents and that Manju told this witness that she would also accompany them to Jaipur. Megharam, father of Manju, dropped Manju and his grandson Akarshak at Laxmangarh in the morning of 12.11.2007 and this witness also came to Laxmangarh, where from, this witness along-with Manju and grandson Akarshak came to Jaipur. While this witness went to his office, Manju went to the home. Manju telephoned him at around 1:30 PM and informed him that Mukesh was not yet traceable. He was not even present in the ‘saari’ center nor has he come to home. 10. Nihal Singh (PW-12) has further stated that he thereafter came to the home and enquired from Manju. He also enquired from friends of Mukesh, namely, Pawan Kumar, Mahesh and Dheeraj. He was not even present in the ‘saari’ center nor has he come to home. 10. Nihal Singh (PW-12) has further stated that he thereafter came to the home and enquired from Manju. He also enquired from friends of Mukesh, namely, Pawan Kumar, Mahesh and Dheeraj. They told him that Mukesh had left Jaipur for Nagaur and before that he came to Pawan Kumar to take his car on the premise that he wanted to go to his sister-in-law Bhanwari Devi and her lover Kailash. Since the car was not in the working condition, they parked the car in the house of this witness. Pawan Kumar then dropped Mukesh on motorcycle of Mukesh at Sindhi Camp Bus Stand. But on that day there was lot of crowd since it was a festive season of Diwali and there were lot of passengers on the Bus Stand and Mukesh could not get the direct bus for Nagaur and therefore he first went to Ajmer by bus and thereafter Nagaur. He purchased a ticket for Ajmer and was seated in the bus. All these facts were told to this witness by the friends of Mukesh. The friends also told this witness that Kailash and Bhanwari Devi during that time were frequently calling. Mukesh assured them that he was coming to Nagaur. It was on 11.11.2007 that the police told this witness that dead body of an unknown person has been found in the area of Police Station Laxmangarh, which resembles with the physiognomy disclosed by this witness. In the meantime, Megharam, father-in-law of Mukesh, also reached Jaipur. Then all of them, namely, this witness, Manju, her son Akarshak and her father Megharam, went to village Badusar on 13.11.2007. On the next day, they went to the Police Station, Laxmangarh, along-with certain villagers, where the police showed them sealed packet containing belongings of the deceased, namely, shirt, pants, vest, underwear, shoes, shocks and photographs, which were identified by this witness and other witnesses to be that of the deceased. The clothes and photographs had blood stains and sign of injuries on different parts. The blood marks were visible on the forehead and chest, and also the marks of injuries on legs and chest. This witness has also stated that Manju used to quarrel with Mukesh as she was being misguided by Kailash, Bhanwari and Megharam. Bhanwari wanted to keep Manju with herself at Nagaur. The blood marks were visible on the forehead and chest, and also the marks of injuries on legs and chest. This witness has also stated that Manju used to quarrel with Mukesh as she was being misguided by Kailash, Bhanwari and Megharam. Bhanwari wanted to keep Manju with herself at Nagaur. 11. Statement of Banarsi Devi (PW-24), mother of the deceased, is somewhat identical to that of Nihal Singh (PW-12). Though she has elaborated on the argument which she had with Manju just before Diwali. When she told Manju to help her clean the house, Manju refused to do so and rather insisted that she wanted to go to her parents. Manju also said that she did not want to stay with her mother-in-law and that she wanted divorce from Mukesh. This witness has gone to the extent of alleging that Manju had abused her and said that this Diwali is not going to be good for her. Manju then went to her parents house at Rinau, from where she telephoned on 11.11.2007 on the phone of their neighbour Birbal and talked to Nihal Singh, the husband of this witness, that she wanted to go with them to Jaipur. Her father Megharam dropped her at Laxmangarh, where from she went to Jaipur with Nihal Singh. 12. Banshilal (PW-3), Shivjiram (PW-4) and Nihal Singh (PW-12), who were cited the witnesses of last seen and also the witnesses of beating given to the deceased by the accused, have also alleged that deceased got himself freed from the clutches of the accused and came out of the house of Kailash and Bhanwari. The accused chased him and again brought him inside the house and continued to beat him. Banshilal (PW-3) has stated that Kailash and Bhanwari were his neighbours in the colony. Since it was the festival of Diwali, therefore, she did not go to office. He along-with Shivjiram and Dharmendra went towards the house of Bhanwari, where they saw that Mukesh was being beaten by accused Bhanwari, Kailash, Manju and Megharam. He knew the accused. Mukesh was husband of Manju. When this witness enquired why they were beating Mukesh, the accused told him that it was their internal matter. Bhanwari stated that Mukesh was quarrelling with her sister, therefore, they were trying to persuade her to divorce her and when he did not agree, they gave him a beating. He knew the accused. Mukesh was husband of Manju. When this witness enquired why they were beating Mukesh, the accused told him that it was their internal matter. Bhanwari stated that Mukesh was quarrelling with her sister, therefore, they were trying to persuade her to divorce her and when he did not agree, they gave him a beating. This witness stated that accused continued to give beating Mukesh from 9:30 PM onward on the day of Diwali. When Mukesh came out of the house and ran towards the main road, all four accused chased him and brought back to the house. On the following day, he did not hear the sound of beating Mukesh. In the afternoon he thought that the matter must have been compromised between them. In the evening, he saw Mukesh lying on the rear seat of Maruti-800 car. This witness in cross-examination stated that there were 3-4 vacant plots between his house and the house of Kailash and Bhanwari. He did not know Megharam prior to this incidence. He asked Shivjiram about that person, who told him his name as Megharam. Since the accused had told him that it was their family matter, he did not inform the police. The house of accused Kailash and Bhanwari has boundary wall of height of 3’-4’ and the height of the main gate is 7½’. 13. Shivjiram (PW-4) is also an important witness. He has given similar statement that Bhanwari, Manju and Megharam were beating Mukesh but has excluded Kailash and therefore, to that extent, he has been declared hostile. He saw in the evening that Kailash, Bhanwari and Megharam were putting someone in the dickey of the car, which car returned back at about 3-4 AM in the night and it was parked outside the house in the morning. On the fateful day, the sound of beating the deceased was being heard till the noon but thereafter it was silenced. This witness further stated that when he came back from the market, he saw that Megharm, Bhanwari and Manju were beating Mukesh. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that daughters of Megharam enjoyed bad reputation. On the askance of learned Trial Judge as to in what capacity Kailash was staying with Bhanwari, this witness answered that Kailash and Bhanwari were residing in his neighbourhood but he could not say as to in what capacity they were there. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that daughters of Megharam enjoyed bad reputation. On the askance of learned Trial Judge as to in what capacity Kailash was staying with Bhanwari, this witness answered that Kailash and Bhanwari were residing in his neighbourhood but he could not say as to in what capacity they were there. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the house of accused Kailash and Bhanwari was situated about 250 feet away from his house. 14. Dharmendra Bainda (PW-26), at the relevant time, was the student of second year in the Baldeoram Mirdha College, Nagaur. He stated that house of accused Kailash and Bhanwari was adjacent to his house. On the festival of Diwali of last year, sound was coming from the house of Kailash and Bhanwari at around 6-7 PM. He went to their house, where Shivjiram, Banshilal, Sitaram and his wife Parmeshwari were already present there. They saw that Kailash, Megharam, Manju and Bhanwari were beating one person. When they enquired, Bhanwari told that he was husband of her sister Manju. When they returned back, the sound stopped coming from their house after noon on the second day of Diwali, but in the night at around 8-9 PM the light of their house was switched off. Then he saw Kailash and Bhanwari going in the car. The headlight of the car was also switched off. In the morning, the car was found parked in their house. Mukesh has been murdered by Kailash, Bhanwari, Megharam and Manju. He did not know Mukesh earlier, said this witness. Significantly, the statement of this witness, as already noted above, was recorded on his own insistence when he submitted an application to the learned trial court on 17.10.2008 (Exhibit P-39) alleging that the accused were threatening him and were pressurizing him to give statement in their favour. They have threatened him in the past also and therefore a request was made that his statement be recorded. Unfortunately, his statement could not be completed on 17.10.2008 as the counsel for the defence requested for time and the matter was adjourned to be taken up on 21.10.2008, on which day his cross-examination took place. This gave ample opportunity to the defence, which eventually succeeded in pressurizing this witness, who was aged only 19 years at that time and was a student of second year of three year degree course. This gave ample opportunity to the defence, which eventually succeeded in pressurizing this witness, who was aged only 19 years at that time and was a student of second year of three year degree course. What is reflected from his cross-examination is indeed quite disturbing because this time he stated that he did not see any of the accused subjecting Mukesh to beating. He denied that anyone told him that it was their personal matter and they wanted Mukesh to divorce Manju. He did not hear any sound coming from their house on first and second day of Diwali and that on the last date i.e. 17.10.2008, he gave the statement under pressure of the accused. He did not see the accused beating Mukesh and he did not even see the car of Bhanwari going and coming back. But, this witness in the cross-examination admitted that he gave application to the court on 17.10.2008 requesting that his statement be recorded. That application was supported by an affidavit. Therein he requested that his statement be recorded. But then he tried to wriggle out of this situation by saying that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. The Supreme Court in Paulmeli and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Inspector of Police – (2014) 13 SCC 90 , held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole. Relevant parts thereof, which are admissible in law, can be used by prosecution or defence. 15. The evidence in totality indicates that most of the recoveries, rather all the recoveries, have been made at the instance of Kailash and Bhanwari and the incident is alleged to have been taken place in their house. While evidence against them is available on record but in view of the statement of Nihal Singh (PW-12) as also Banarsi Devi (PW-24), father and mother of the deceased respectively, who also happens to be father-in-law and mother-in-law of accused Manju. She accompanied them to their native and then to village Biramsar to attend the ‘chhuchak’, a customary function where Nihal Singh (PW-12) went to the house of in-laws of his daughter Sunita to give certain gifts as a male child was born to her. Then she went to her parents house at Rinau. She accompanied them to their native and then to village Biramsar to attend the ‘chhuchak’, a customary function where Nihal Singh (PW-12) went to the house of in-laws of his daughter Sunita to give certain gifts as a male child was born to her. Then she went to her parents house at Rinau. But at the same time, it is evident that she called her father-in-law on phone from village Rinau that she wanted to go to Jaipur with them. Except a minor altercation between the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law, as has been alleged by both these witnesses, they are generally saying that she had been peacefully staying with them in the house and discharging marital obligations. Accused Manju had a son aged 4½ years. She wanted to go to her native Rinau and her mother-in-law refused to give her ornaments, which gave rise to altercation between them. Then, with the permission of her father-in-law, Manju went to her parents house on 07.11.2007. Nihal Singh (PW-12) then asked her to reach Jaipur on 07.11.2007 as Mukesh was alone in the house. Thereafter she telephoned her father-in-law (Nihal Singh) on telephone number of his neighbour in village Badusar and requested that she wanted to go to Jaipur with them. She also explained the reason, as admitted by her father-in-law, why she did not go to Jaipur on 07.11.2007 by stating that she had taken permission from Mukesh to stay till 11.11.2007. Then, as agreed, Megharam, father of Manju, brought her to Laxmangarh, where from Nihal Singh (PW-12, father-in-law of Manju) along-with his daughter-in-law Manju and grandson Akarshak came Jaipur. While Nihal Singh, her father-in-law went to the office, Manju with her son Akarshak went to the house. She did not find Mukesh in the house and made enquiries from the showroom of Janak Nandni Saari Centre, Jaipur. From there also she was informed that Mukesh did not come to the showroom. She then enquired from the friends of Mukesh, namely, Mahesh Kumar (PW-16), Pawan Kumar (PW-19) and Dheeraj Singh (PW-20), who told her that Mukesh had gone to Nagaur. This fact has been admitted by Nihal Singh (PW-12), father-in-law of Manju, in his statement. Then the police informed Nihal Singh about one dead body, which was found near Government Secondary School, Ghassu, physiognomy of which was similar to that of his sone Mukesh. This fact has been admitted by Nihal Singh (PW-12), father-in-law of Manju, in his statement. Then the police informed Nihal Singh about one dead body, which was found near Government Secondary School, Ghassu, physiognomy of which was similar to that of his sone Mukesh. On learning this, Megharam, father-in-law of Mukesh and father of Manju, also reached Jaipur. Then all of them, namely, Nihal Singh (PW-12), Manju, her son Akarshak and Manju’s father Megharam, went to village Badusar on 13.11.2007 and on the next day, they went to the Police Station, Laxmangarh, along-with certain villagers, where they identified the dead body of Mukesh and his other belongings. 16. All these events have by and large been admitted by Banarsi Devi (PW-24), mother-in-law of Manju and mother of deceased Mukesh. The conduct of Manju and Megharam was quite natural as they throughout were in constant touch or in the company of Nihal Singh and Bansarsi Devi. Therefore, the charge of murder against them cannot be held to have been proved by circumstantial evidence. Recovery of Passbook of S.B.B.J. and Cheque Book of Karnataka Bank Limited from Smt. Manju vide Exhibit P-58 to Exhibit P-62 on 26.11.2007 and this recovery is a natural circumstance as she, being his wife, has been regularly staying with him. Banshilal (PW-3), Shivjiram (PW-4) and Dharmendra Bainda (PW-26) could not have identified them because neither of them were staying in Nagaur nor is it otherwise proved by evidence that they reached Nagaur. Chain of circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution against them has several missing links and does not rule out every single hypothesis, which may be compatible with their innocence. However, case of accused-appellants Kailash and Bhanwari stands on altogether different footings. Zakir Hussain (PW-30), even though turned hostile, but in his examination-in-chief, he has supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he was license holder for selling the stamps. He was maintaining register for sale of the stamp papers, which was Exhibit P-45. He sold three stamp papers, each of Rs.10/-, and made entries thereof at Serial No.1196, 1197 and 1198 dated 08.11.2007 in the name of Mukesh S/o Nihal Singh. All the three stamp papers were purchased by Kailash, but in cross examination he stated that he did not know Kailash and did not recognize him and therefore he was declared hostile. He sold three stamp papers, each of Rs.10/-, and made entries thereof at Serial No.1196, 1197 and 1198 dated 08.11.2007 in the name of Mukesh S/o Nihal Singh. All the three stamp papers were purchased by Kailash, but in cross examination he stated that he did not know Kailash and did not recognize him and therefore he was declared hostile. Even then, this witness can be relied to the extent of sale of stamp papers, as he provides corroboration to the fact that he sold stamp papers. 17. The police has not made any further investigation about the use of these stamp papers. In the search of the house of the accused, a wooden piece was found at the instance of accused Kailsh and Bhanwari vide Exhibit P-6 and as per the FSL report the said wooden piece was found to contain human blood. The police also recovered two ATM cards of deceased Mukesh and one ticket from Jaipur to Ajmer and bundle of cotton bandage from accused Kailash and Bhanwari vide Exhibit P-8, to which Shivjiram (PW-4) and Maniram were the attesting witnesses. The Maruti-800 Car was recovered vide Exhibit P-26. The registration of that car is Exhibit P-68, which indicates that the car was registered in the name of Bhanwari Devi as wife of Kailash Chand. Although the case of the prosecution is that Kailash Chand was rather more known as her lover and not her husband but nonetheless their proximity is proved by all the attending circumstances. Since the house of Kailash and Bhanwari was having boundary wall of only 3-4 feet high, it was quite possible even for neighbours to notice the beating given to the deceased both visually and by audibly. 18. The statements of Banshilal (PW-3), Shivjiram (PW-4) and Dharmendra Bainda (PW-26), to the extent that the deceased was seen being carried by the accused in the Maruti Car therefore could be believed. 19. In view of above discussion, present appeal, in so far as accused-appellant no.1 and 3, namely, Kailash Chand and Smt. Bhanwari Devi are concerned, fails and is hereby dismissed. Impugned judgment dated 24.01.2009 passed by the trial court qua them is affirmed. 19. In view of above discussion, present appeal, in so far as accused-appellant no.1 and 3, namely, Kailash Chand and Smt. Bhanwari Devi are concerned, fails and is hereby dismissed. Impugned judgment dated 24.01.2009 passed by the trial court qua them is affirmed. However, appeal of accused-appellant no.2 and 4, namely, Megharam and Smt. Manju Devi deserves to succeed and is allowed, as the evidence on record against them falls short of proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thus, entitling them to benefit of doubt. Impugned judgment dated 24.01.2009 passed by the trial court qua them is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34, 342 and 201 IPC. Accused-appellants no.2 and 4 namely Megharam and Smt. Manju Devi respectively are in jail and be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 20. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellants no.2 and 4 namely Megharam and Smt. Manju Devi are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, they, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.