JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Mahesh son of Haja, Dinesh son of Ramji and Manheng son of Hirji, residents of Unti, Purani Tehsil Garhi, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 122/2011 were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 21.6.2014 held accused Mahesh guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 IPC, whereas accused Dinesh and Manheng were held guilty of offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 394/34 IPC. 2. Having convicted the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences, the trial court vide a separate order of even date sentenced the appellants as under :- U/s. 302 and 302/34 IPC-to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional three months RI. U/s. 394 IPC-to undergo ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional two months RI. 3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 4. The criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/3) presented by Taju (P.W.2) before Sub Inspector, Babu Lal (P.W.19). Babu Lal (P.W.19) in the court deposed that on 11.6.2010, he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Garhi. He received an information from Sarpanch that at the back of hospital in Mor village, a dead body of unidentified lady is lying. Upon receipt of information, Babu Lal reached at the hospital, where the dead body was found. Neck of the dead body was having cut marks. Taju (P.W.2) presented written report (Exhibit-P/3), on the basis thereof, he had registered a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/4) bearing No. 136/2010, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He prepared inquest/Panchayatnama (Exhibit-P/1) of the dead body. Thereafter, he inspected the spot and prepared site plan (Exhibit-P/5) of the spot. From the spot, he recovered silver Koliyan, blood stained knife, blood stained and sample soil. This witness proved memo Exhibit-P/6 whereby blood stained soil was taken into possession, Exhibit-P/7 whereby knife was recovered from the spot and memo Exhibit-P/8 whereby silver Koliyan were taken into possession. The spot was got photographed, and thereafter, dead body was sent for post mortem. Clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/9. This witness proved memo Exhibit-P/6 whereby blood stained soil was taken into possession, Exhibit-P/7 whereby knife was recovered from the spot and memo Exhibit-P/8 whereby silver Koliyan were taken into possession. The spot was got photographed, and thereafter, dead body was sent for post mortem. Clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/9. After the post mortem, the dead body was handed over to relations of the deceased Sunita vide Supurdginama (Exhibit-P/2). 5. Babu Lal (P.W.19) after performing necessary formalities at the spot proceeded with the investigation and recorded police statement of Bhura (P.W.9), Lala Ram (P.W.10), Ranchhod (P.W.12), Lal Shankar (P.W.13), Shri Pal Jain (P.W.15) and Kala (P.W.16) vide police statements Exhibit-P/10, Exhibit-P/11, Exhibit-P/24, Exhibit-P/25, Exhibit-P/34 and Exhibit-P/35 respectively. Babu Lal also recorded police statements of Kamal Kishore (P.W.1) and Laxman (P.W.5). Further supplementary statements of Laxman (P.W.5), Jomji (P.W.3), Jugnu (P.W.14), Haliya (P.W.4), Gita (P.W.6), Dhula (P.W.21), Bhura (P.W.9) and Vijaypal (P.W.18) were recorded as per statement given by them. 6. Babu Lal further deposed in court that during investigation, on 14.6.2011 vide memo Exhibit-P/40 he arrested accused Mahesh and on 16.6.2010 vide arrest memos Exhibit- P/41 and Exhibit-P/42 he arrested accused Manheng and Dinesh, respectively. As per investigating officer, accused Mahesh on 15.6.2010 suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/43) and informed the investigating agency that two silver bracelets of deceased Sunita have been kept concealed by him and he can get the same recovered along with clothes worn by him on the day of occurrence and one motorcycle used for crime. In pursuance of said disclosure statement, accused Mahesh vide memo Exhibit- P/14 and Exhibit-P/15 got recovered one motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 03 4M 4090 and one paint and T-shirt stained with blood, respectively. 7. We may also notice here that Mahesh vide memo Exhibit-P/12 also got recovered two silver bracelets stained with blood from his house. Memos Exhibit-P/12, Exhibit-P/14 and Exhibit-P/15 leading to recovery of silver bracelets of deceased, motorcycle used in crime and clothes worn by accused Mahesh were witnessed by Ranchhod (P.W.12) and Lal Shankar (P.W.13). 8. During interrogation, on 16.6.2010 accused appellant Manheng suffered voluntary disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/44) and informed that two silver anklets, Hasli, Hakli, Mangal Sutra and one bracelet were concealed by him in his house and he can get the same recovered. 8. During interrogation, on 16.6.2010 accused appellant Manheng suffered voluntary disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/44) and informed that two silver anklets, Hasli, Hakli, Mangal Sutra and one bracelet were concealed by him in his house and he can get the same recovered. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/44), Manheng vide memo Exhibit-P/16 got recovered above items of silver jewellery recovered. Manheng also vide memo Exhibit-P/17 got recovered one black colour shoe of boxer company stained with blood from his house. Both memo Exhibit-P/16 and Exhibit-P/17 were attested by Ranchhod (P.W.12) and Lal Shankar (P.W.13). 9. Accused Dinesh suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit- P/45) and informed the police that he had kept concealed silver anklets, Hasli, Hakli, Mangal Sutra and one bracelets in his house in a wooden box. The case of prosecution that in pursuance of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/45) dated 16.6.2010 accused Dinesh vide memo Exhibit-P/19 got recovered one silver Hasli and one Mangal Sutra. This accused Dinesh also vide memo Exhibit-P/20 got recovered old motorcycle (Yamaha Crux) bearing No. RJ 35 M 1999, along with clothes stained with blood. Recovery memo of clothes worn by the accused stained by blood were proved on record as Exhibit-P/21. Memos leading to recovery of articles at the instance of accused Dinesh have been proved on record as Exhibit-P/19, Exhibit-P/20 and Exhibit-P/21, respectively. These memos were also attested by Ranchhod (P.W.12) and Lal Shankar (P.W.13). 10. Thus, during interrogation after arrest, accused have suffered respective disclosure statements detailed above and in pursuance thereof got recovered vehicle used in crime, blood stained clothes and various articles of jewellery worn by deceased Sunita. 11. The prosecution in order to secure conviction of the appellants, examined twenty-two witnesses, namely Kamal Kishore (P.W.1), Taju (P.W.2), Jomji (P.W.3), Haliya (P.W.4), Laxman (P.W.5), Gita (P.W.6), Raman (P.W.7), Ramesh (P.W.8), Bhura (P.W.9), Lala Ram (P.W.10), Kanji (P.W.11), Ranchhod (P.W.12), Lal Shanakar (P.W.13), Jugnu (P.W.14), Shri Pal Jain (P.W.15), Kala (P.W.16), Dr. Dev Ashok Panda (P.W.17), Vijay Pal (P.W.18), Babu Lal (P.W.19), Bahadur Singh (P.W.20), Dhula (P.W.21) and Gopal Lal (P.W.22). 12. Before we take notice of the prosecution case, we shall notice a brief gist of the prosecution case emerging in written report (Exhibit-P/3) on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. 13. Dev Ashok Panda (P.W.17), Vijay Pal (P.W.18), Babu Lal (P.W.19), Bahadur Singh (P.W.20), Dhula (P.W.21) and Gopal Lal (P.W.22). 12. Before we take notice of the prosecution case, we shall notice a brief gist of the prosecution case emerging in written report (Exhibit-P/3) on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. 13. Taju (P.W.2) in written report (Exhibit-P/3) presented before Babu Lal (P.W.19) stated that his daughter Sanu alias Sunita aged about 18-19 years on 6.6.2010 was married with Kala son of Dhula. The ritual of first visit of a girl to her parental house after marriage was performed on 10.6.2010 at 6:00 PM. On the same night at 9:00 PM, her daughter had gone to attend marriage of Gota son of Moga while wearing jewellery. She had not returned in the night. The family members of Sanu thought that she may have slept somewhere. On the next day, they searched for her, near their house and near the place of marriage, but she was not found. On the next date, on 11.6.2010 in the morning at 7/8 AM, an information was received that a dead body of a lady is lying at the back of hospital of Mor village. Upon which, he, his brother Laxman and Jomji came. They identified the dead body to be of their daughter Sanu. It was further stated that the dead body was having a cut injury on the neck and clothes of the deceased were stained with blood and silver jewellery articles were missing from her body. The complainant in the written report (Exhibit-P/3) stated that he is having suspicion against Taju son of Hirji, Kamlesh son of Magan, Mahesh son of Haja, Bhania son of Haja. 14. As we have already stated above, FIR (Exhibit-P/4) was investigated and charge-sheet was presented against accused. We have also narrated the names of the witnesses who appeared in the court. 15. Now, we shall have quick glance of the evidence led by prosecution. 16. Kamal Kishore (P.W.1) Sarpanch of the village stated that seven to eight months ago in the morning at 8:00 AM, he received information from the villagers that near the pit of PHC Hospital of village Mor, a dead body of unidentified woman is lying. He went at the spot and learnt that the neck of deceased has been chopped off and near the dead body, a knife was lying. He went at the spot and learnt that the neck of deceased has been chopped off and near the dead body, a knife was lying. This witness stated that he in his capacity as Sarpanch had given information to police. Police arrived at the scene of occurrence. At that time, Taju (P.W.2) also came and disclosed that the dead body was of his daughter Sanu. Thus, Kamal Kishore (P.W.1) has not seen the occurrence. He had only informed the police regarding presence of dead body. 17. Taju (P.W.2) the complainant stated that Sanu, aged 18 years was his daughter. She was married with Kala son of Dhula. This witness stated that on 10.6.2010 in-laws of Sanu brought her to parental home. From there, Sanu had gone to attend the marriage. She was wearing jewellery. This witness has given description of jewellery articles worn by his daughter. This witness further stated that his daughter had left at 9:00 PM and when in the morning she had not returned, they thought that she may have slept at house of her uncle. In the morning they learnt that dead body of a lady has been found near hospital of village Mor. This witness went to the spot and identified the dead body. This witness stated that jewellery articles worn by deceased were missing. Thus, this witness lodged the report, identified the dead body and described factum of missing of silver jewellery articles. 18. Jomji (P.W.3), Haliya (P.W.4) and Laxman (P.W.5) are witnesses of evidence of last seen, relied by the prosecution to connect accused with crime. Jomji (P.W.3) stated that name of her niece is Sanu. She was married. She had returned after marriage to house of her parents. She was brought back to parental home from there she went to attend marriage. She was wearing jewellery articles. This witness stated that his brother Laxman (P.W.5) for some work had gone out of house. When they were returning, near Hanuman Mandir, they had seen two-wheeler which was driven by Mahesh and between driver and pillion rider, a girl was sitting. This witness stated that he could not identify the lady. She was wearing jewellery articles. This witness stated that his brother Laxman (P.W.5) for some work had gone out of house. When they were returning, near Hanuman Mandir, they had seen two-wheeler which was driven by Mahesh and between driver and pillion rider, a girl was sitting. This witness stated that he could not identify the lady. We shall reproduce the exact portion from the testimony of Jonji (P.W.3) as under:- ^^eSa o esjk HkkbZ y{e.k fdlh dke ls x;s FksA okil vk jgs Fks fd guqeku eafnj ds ikl nks ifg;k okgu ns[kk mls egs'k pyk jgk Fkk o mlds lkFk ekusax ihNs cSBk Fkk chp esa ,d yM+dh cSBh FkhA okgu pkyd o ihNs cSBs vkneh dks eSaus igpku fy;k FkkA chp esa cSBh yM+dh dks eSaus ugha igpkuk FkkA** (Emphasis Supplied)" Jomji (P.W.3) identified Mahesh and Manheng as persons who were accompanying a lady. We cannot construe the evidence of Jomji (P.W.3) as evidence of last seen, as he specifically stated that he could not identify the lady. Therefore, for lack of identification, the prosecution has failed to prove that Sunita deceased was last seen with the accused. Haliy (P.W.4) stated that he knew Sunita deceased. She had come to their house for Haldi ceremony. In the night at 8:00 PM, she stayed for 10 to 15 minutes. This witness stated that he is not aware thereafter, where Sunita had gone. In the morning he learnt that her dead body is lying behind hospital of village Mor. This witness has also failed to prove the evidence of last seen. Laxman (P.W.5) reiterated that his niece Sunita had gone to attend marriage. She was wearing jewellery articles. This witness had gone to some work to village Tada. While he was returning, near Hanuman Mandir, this witness saw two motorcycles. He saw in the light of vehicle that one motorcycle which was in front and same was being driven by Mahesh. In middle a girl was sitting and the pillion rider was Manheng. She was wearing jewellery articles. This witness had gone to some work to village Tada. While he was returning, near Hanuman Mandir, this witness saw two motorcycles. He saw in the light of vehicle that one motorcycle which was in front and same was being driven by Mahesh. In middle a girl was sitting and the pillion rider was Manheng. We shall reproduce exact words from the testimony of Laxman (P.W.5) as under:- ^^eSa VkaM+k xkoa esa fdlh dke ls x;k Fkk ogka ls okil vkrs le; guqeku eafnj ds ikl nks eksVj lkbZfdy feyhA ihNs dh xkM+h dh ykbZV esa eSaus n[kk fd mlds vkxs pyus okyh xkM+h dks egs'k pyk jgk Fkk egs'k ds ihNs chp esa ,d yM+dh cSBh Fkh o yM+dh ds ihNs ekusax mls idM+ dj cSBk FkkA ;g ckr jkr dks 8&9 cts dh gSA mlds ckn eSa ?kj ij vkdj lks x;k FkkA** From the above portion, it is evident that in the night, witness came and slept and he had not identified the girl to be his niece. This witness stated that in the morning, a dead body was recovered and same was of his niece. This witness admitted that police had recorded his statements twice and in the first statement, he had not named accused due to fear, as they were dangerous people. We reproduce following portion from the testimony of Laxman (P.W.5) as under:- ^^iqfyl esa esjs nks ckj c;ku gq, FksA eSaus igys okys c;ku esa eqyfteku ds uke blfy;s ugha fy[kk;k D;ksafd os [krjukd Fks os eq>s ekj Mkyrs bl Mj ls ugha fy[kk;sA** Thus, this witness in examination-in-chief had not identified that girl who was sitting on motorcycle between Mahesh and Manheng. Deceased Sunita was his niece therefore, he could not miss her especially when he has named accused. Furthermore, in the first statement recorded by police, he failed to name the accused. Thus, all the three witnesses, namely Jomji (P.W.3), Haliya (P.W.4) and Laxman (P.W.5) have not advanced the case of prosecution qua material circumstance of last seen. Gita (P.W.6) in the court deposed about the fact that on 10.6.2010, deceased Sunita had come to his house. She stayed for 10 to 15 minutes and thereafter, she left the house. She was wearing jewellery and on the next day her dead body was found. Raman (P.W.7) is witness to the recovery of articles from the spot. Gita (P.W.6) in the court deposed about the fact that on 10.6.2010, deceased Sunita had come to his house. She stayed for 10 to 15 minutes and thereafter, she left the house. She was wearing jewellery and on the next day her dead body was found. Raman (P.W.7) is witness to the recovery of articles from the spot. Ramesh (P.W.8) had attested the Supurdginama (Exhibit-P/2) of the dead body. This witness stated that thereafter, the dead body was cremated. Bhura (P.W.9) in the court stated that deceased Sunita was his niece. After marriage, she had returned to her parental house. He learnt about her death in the morning. This witness stated that he is not aware how deceased had died. This witness stated that he heard about the name of accused Mahesh and he is not aware whether deceased was having illicit relations with the accused Mahesh. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. Lala Ram (P.W.10) has also not supported the prosecution case and this witness was also declared hostile to the prosecution. Kanji (P.W.11) had attested Supurdginama (Exhibit- P/2). Ranchhod (P.W.12) is important witness in whose presence recoveries were effected from the accused. This witness stated that the whole village learnt about the death of deceased. This witness stated that accused are not known to him. This witness stated that police had arrested them. This witness further stated that he cannot identify Mahesh accused. This witness further stated that he cannot identify Mahesh accused as the one who got the recoveries effected. We shall reproduce following portion from the examination-in-chief of Ranchhod (P.W.12) as under:- ^^nwljs fnu luq ds ejus dh [kcj iwjs xkao esa QSy xbZ FkhA gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku dks eSa ugha tkurk gwaA gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku dks iqfyl okyksa us idM+k FkkA egs'k gk0 vnk0 eqy0 dks eSa uke ls ugha tkurk gwaA gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku esa ls egs'k eqfYte dks ugha igpku ldrk gwaA ftl eqfYte us iqfyl okyksa dks vius ?kj esa ls jdesa cjken djkbZ Fkh] ml eqfYte dks eSa gkftj vnkyr eqfYtekuksa esa ls ugha igpkurk gwaA igys ftl eqfYte dks ysdj iqfyl okys vk;s Fks] mlds edku esa pkanh ds dM+s iSjksa esa iguus ds cjken fd;s FksA** Ranchhod (P.W.12) was declared hostile to the prosecution. He was confronted with his previous statement by Public Prosecutor. He was confronted with his previous statement by Public Prosecutor. However, prosecution could not gain anything favourable as he denied the suggestion that he knew accused by the name and face. The exact portion stated by this witness reads as under:- ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa gkftj vknkyr eqfYteku dks 'kDy o uke ls igpkurk gwaA** Lal Shankar (P.W.13) stated that Police had arrested accused Mahesh and Manheng and five, six other persons. Accused Mahesh got recovered from his house bracelets, pant and T-shirt. Silver bracelets were stained with blood. Pant and T-shirt were also having stains of blood. This witness further stated that accused Manheng also got recovered articles in pursuance of disclosure made by him. However, this witness has not supported the prosecution case qua accused Dinesh, as this witness stated that in his presence, Dinesh got no article recovered from his house. The exact words stated by this witness are reproduced below:- ^^fnus'k gkftj vnkyr eqfYte dks eSa vgpkurk gwaA fnus'k gk0 vnk0 eqy0 us esjs lkeus mlds fjgk;f'j edku esa ls dksbZ cjkenxh ugh djkbZA** Lal Shankar (P.W.13) stated that besides him, Ranchhod (P.W.12), Dhula (P.W.21) father-in-law and Kala (P.W.16) husband of deceased were present at the spot. Dhula and Kala had identified articles. We shall reproduce the testimony of examination-in-chief of this witness as under:- ^^/kqyk odkuth us mDr jdeksa dh ekSds ij igpku dh FkhA** Then, in cross-examination, Lal Shankar (P.W.13) stated that he was called at police station. His signatures were obtained at the police station and at the spot. Police had obtained his signatures on eight to ten papers. Then later, this witness again stated that his signatures were taken by the police at the spot. This witness further stated to be correct that the articles recovered from the accused have not been produced before him in the court. Jugnu (P.W.14) in the court stated that he being photographer was called at the spot and he had taken photographs. Shri Pal Jain (P.W.15) is a Jeweller who had prepared the jewellery. This witness stated that Dhula (P.W.21) had purchased jewellery worth rupees Twenty nine thousands and he had issued a bill. This witness stated that he is not aware anything qua the factum of death of deceased Sunita, daughter-in-law of Dhula. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. Shri Pal Jain (P.W.15) is a Jeweller who had prepared the jewellery. This witness stated that Dhula (P.W.21) had purchased jewellery worth rupees Twenty nine thousands and he had issued a bill. This witness stated that he is not aware anything qua the factum of death of deceased Sunita, daughter-in-law of Dhula. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. Kala (P.W.16) in the court stated that about two years ago, before his date of deposition, he was married with deceased Sunita. At the time of marriage, they had given jewellery. This witness stated that deceased Sunita had gone to her parental house. In the morning at 11:00 AM, they learnt that she has been murdered. He had not gone at the spot. Villagers had gone there. Police had carried the proceedings. This witness stated that he is not aware as to who was arrested. In cross-examination by learned public prosecutor, Kala (P.W.16) supported the prosecution to the extent that deceased Sunita was having illicit relations with Mahesh and the accused had committed her murder and had taken away the articles of jewellery. However, this piece of evidence which has emerged in the cross-examination of the witness by the learned public prosecutor is based on hearsay evidence, hence, same is inadmissible. We may notice that this witness has also not identified articles of jewellery. Dr. Dev Ashok Panda (P.W.17) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sunita. We need not notice the contents thereof, as it is admitted fact that she has died because of violence. Constable Vijay Pal (P.W.18) had carried eleven sealed packets to Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur. This witness was examined to prove link evidence. We have already noticed the testimony of Babu Lal (P.W.19) who proved various facets of investigation. Head Constable Bahadur Singh (P.W.20) on 11.6.2010 was posted as In-charge of Malkhana. He has proved deposit of articles recovered during investigation and their onwards transmission to FSL. Dhula (P.W.21) in the court stated that deceased Sunita is his daughter-in-law. After wearing jewellery she had gone to visit her parents. Next day they learnt that she had died. Jewellery articles went missing. This witness stated that recovery of jewellery articles was effected but neither the accused were known to him, nor the witness identified articles of jewellery, being one which were purchased by him. Gopal Lal (P.W.22) had partly investigated the case. 19. Next day they learnt that she had died. Jewellery articles went missing. This witness stated that recovery of jewellery articles was effected but neither the accused were known to him, nor the witness identified articles of jewellery, being one which were purchased by him. Gopal Lal (P.W.22) had partly investigated the case. 19. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 All incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same and examined no witness in defence. 20. Having noted the entire prosecution case, it is evident that the prosecution to secure conviction of the accused relied upon the following two circumstances: (i) Evidence of last seen emerging in the testimony of Jomji (P.W.3), Haliya (P.W.4) and Laxman (P.W.5). (ii) Recoveries effected from accused in pursuance of disclosure suffered by them. 21. Having noted evidence of Jomji (P.W.3), Haliya (P.W.4) and Laxman (P.W.5), we have already given our reasons as to why witnesses cannot be believed and how prosecution has failed to prove evidence of last seen. Jomji (P.W.3) has not named the girl who was accompanying accused Mahesh and Manheng. Similarly, Haliya (P.W.4) has not supported the prosecution. He has stated that he had not seen deceased Sunita. Laxman (P.W.5) has also not named the girl who was sitting on motorcycle between Mahesh and Manheng. Furthermore, two statements of Laxman (P.W.5) were recorded and in the first statement made to police, after recovery of dead body, he had not stated anything about evidence of last seen. Furthermore, this witness in the court has also not specifically named the girl sitting on the motorcycle. Thus, evidence of last seen has not been proved by the prosecution. 22. Now, we come to the recovery of jewellery, motorcycle and clothes from the accused. 23. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary the learned Public Prosecutor has laid much emphasis on the report of FSL (Exhibit-/50). As per said report blood smeared soil, controlled soil, knife, keels of Kade, blouse, Ghaghara, Odni, silver Kade, T-shirt, Pant, Kada, Hakali, a pair of shoes, Mangalsutra, Hansali, a pair of shoes and shirt on all articles, human blood having blood group 'O' was found. As per said report blood smeared soil, controlled soil, knife, keels of Kade, blouse, Ghaghara, Odni, silver Kade, T-shirt, Pant, Kada, Hakali, a pair of shoes, Mangalsutra, Hansali, a pair of shoes and shirt on all articles, human blood having blood group 'O' was found. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the very fact that the clothes of deceased, accused and the articles recovered were having same blood group, is sufficient to presume that offence has been committed by the accused. The prosecution to prove recovery of Knife, clothes and jewellery articles from the accused has examined two witnesses, namely Ranchhod (P.W.12) and Lal Shankar (P.W.13). Ranchhod (P.W.12) has turned hostile to the prosecution and Lal Shankar (P.W.13) has not supported the prosecution case qua Dinesh. Furthermore, this witness (P.W.13) has been shifting his stand. In cross-examination, in one breath he stated that his signatures were obtained at the police station, then he stated that his signatures were obtained over eight to ten papers. Then this witness stated that recovery was effected from the house and his signatures were obtained at the place of occurrence. In cross-examination, this witness stated that articles got recovered from Manheng have not been produced in the court. 24. So far articles of silver jewellery are concerned, the prosecution carried no Identification proceedings. Lal Shankar (P.W.13) in the court has stated that Kala (P.W.16) and Dhula (P.W.21) husband and father-in-law of deceased respectively, identified the articles at the spot. No proceedings were carried by the prosecution for identification of articles in presence of some independent persons or executive Magistrate. Silver articles were not mixed with similar articles and they were not identified by any witness. Even in the court, Kala (P.W.16) husband of deceased Sunita and Dhula (P.W.21) father-in-law of deceased have not identified the articles. Even Shri Pal Jain (P.W.15) Jeweller from whom jewellery were purchased has not identified the same. Therefore, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove that articles of jewellery recovered from the accused, were same articles, which deceased was wearing. So far recovery of clothes from the accused is concerned, that shall also pale into insignificance, as same has been specifically denied by Ranchhod (P.W.12). Therefore, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove that articles of jewellery recovered from the accused, were same articles, which deceased was wearing. So far recovery of clothes from the accused is concerned, that shall also pale into insignificance, as same has been specifically denied by Ranchhod (P.W.12). Having read the testimony of Lal Shankar (P.W.13), we are of the view that implicit reliance cannot be placed upon his testimony so far recovery of clothes is concerned, especially when he has not supported the prosecution case qua recoveries effected from Dinesh accused. 25. In case, recoveries from Dinesh accused are assumed to be padding, same cannot be ruled out qua other accused. Even otherwise, merely on the evidence of recovery, we cannot sustain conviction of the appellants, especially when nobody had seen them around the place of occurrence. 26. Having discussed broad spectrum of the prosecution case, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the offence if any has been committed by the appellants alone and by none else. 27. Thus, we shall extend benefit of doubt to the accused appellants as a matter of abundant caution. 28. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the trial court upon the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of all charges. 29. The trial court is directed to ensure compliance of section 437A of Cr.P.C., 1973 at the time of issuance of release warrant of accused.