JUDGMENT : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. Both above appeals are filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. laying a challenge to judgment dated 21st July, 2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Merta (Trial Court) in Session Case No. 67/2015, whereby the accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram was convicted for offence under Sections 302, 458 & 392 r/w 397 IPC and the appellant-Suresh Chandra was convicted for offence under Section 411 of IPC. The following sentence was passed against the accused appellants : Appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram : 302 of IPC Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. 458 of IPC Seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment. 392 r/w 397 of IPC Seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment. Appellant-Suresh Chandra : 411 of IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation to further undergo one month's imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that an F.I.R. No. 58/2007 was registered upon written complaint (Ex. P/31) filed by Jeevan Ram (PW. 8) before the S.H.O., Police Station Padukallan, District Nagaur, in which it is reported by Jeevan Ram that wife of my brother, Smt. Dakhu Devi, is living alone in her house. On 08.05.2007 in the evening at about 06-07'O Clock, she came to the flour mill as narrated by Pratap Ram Jat, and in the morning of 09.05.2007 at about 12'O Clock, wife of Kachruram Khati went to meet Smt. Dakhu Devi, at that time, the door of her house was closed and cow was standing there. The wife of Kachruram, Smt. Kastoori and Smt. Suni Devi W/o Gani Khan, came there and saw from the window of the house that blood was spread over inside the house. Upon receipt of information in this regard by them, the complainant went to the house of Smt. Dakhu Devi and saw that she was lying on the cot and one cloth ¼xqnMh½ put upon the body and upon inspection it was found that both the legs were cut down by someone and caused death of her and her ornaments, viz. Upon receipt of information in this regard by them, the complainant went to the house of Smt. Dakhu Devi and saw that she was lying on the cot and one cloth ¼xqnMh½ put upon the body and upon inspection it was found that both the legs were cut down by someone and caused death of her and her ornaments, viz. “Kadla”, ear tops and “Tussi” which she was wearing, were found missing. According to FIR one room was locked and other ornaments of Jeemni Devi, daughter-in-law of Dakhu Devi were also missing. The complainant apprehended that someone had killed his brother's wife and took away the ornaments from her body and house. 3. After registration of the FIR under Section 460 IPC, the S.H.O., Police Station-Padukallan, commenced the investigation. 4. Accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram was arrested on the basis of evidence of last seen vide Ex. P/35 on 09.05.2007. However, before arrest, the S.H.O. went on the spot and prepared site plan (Ex. P/3), so also, prepared ‘Panchnama’ of the dead body (Ex. P/1) was prepared on 09.05.2007 and details of dead body were recorded vide Ex. P/2. Blood stained mud and simple soil was taken from the place of occurrence vide Ex. P/4 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Bhanwara Ram and Pratap Ram. Blood stained pillow and one Odni of Smt. Dakhu Devi (deceased) were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/5. 5. After arrest, information was given by accused appellant-Gopi Ram vide Ex. P/7 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for recovery of ornaments viz. “Kadla” and another information (Ex. P/8) was given for recovery of secondhand mobile (Nokia) and SIM of hutch company. The recovery of silver “Kadla” was made vide Ex. P/9 on 09.05.2007 at 04.00 PM in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Puna Ram and Pratap Ram. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and postmortem report (Ex. P/37) was obtained by the investigating officer on 10.05.2007. In the postmortem report, the cause of death opined by the Medical Board was excessive hemorrhage from wound. All the articles, where were recovered during investigation were sent for chemical analysis to the FSL vide communication (Ex. P/29). During investigation, one axe was also recovered upon information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused appellant vide Ex. All the articles, where were recovered during investigation were sent for chemical analysis to the FSL vide communication (Ex. P/29). During investigation, one axe was also recovered upon information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused appellant vide Ex. P/37 and pursuant to which axe was recovered vide Ex. P/38 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Joraram and Heeralal. Blood stained cloths were also recovered vide Ex. P/40 upon information given by accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram. The recovery of “Kadla” was made from the shop of co-accused, Suresh Chandra therefore, he too was arrested vide Ex. P/6 on 16.05.2017 at 02.15 PM. The recovered articles were subjected identification proceedings before the Magistrate (PW. 12-Rajpal Singh), who was working as Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Merta on 23.05.2007. The ornaments, viz. Silver “Kadla” were identified by the daughter of deceased Smt. Sohini @ Chhoti vide Ex. P/53 and identification proceedings were conducted by the Magistrate upon the communication dated 23.05.2007 (Ex. P/61) submitted by the S.H.O., Police Station Padukallan, in which silver “Kadla” were rightly identified by the daughter of deceased. During investigation, FSL report (Ex. P/49) was also received on 20.06.2007. 6. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Merta under Section 302, 460, 392 r/w Section 397 IPC and against appellant Suresh Chandra under Section 411 of IPC. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Merta, but it was transferred for trial to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Merta. 7. The learned Special Judge after providing opportunity of hearing framed charges against the accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram for offence u/s. 302, 460, 392 and 397 of IPC, which he denied and prayed for trial. Similarly, charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against appellant Suresh Chandra from whom pair of silver “Kadla” was recovered as per information given by accused appellant-Gopi Ram but he also denied the charges and prayed for trial. 8. The learned trial court after framing charges granted opportunity to lead evidence. In support of prosecution case, statements of 18 witnesses were recorded. 8. The learned trial court after framing charges granted opportunity to lead evidence. In support of prosecution case, statements of 18 witnesses were recorded. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court proceeded to record statements of the appellants, Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram and Suresh Chandra under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which both the appellants denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses. In defence, accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram examined himself and thereafter final arguments were heard. 9. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties finally convicted the accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram for offences under Sections 302, 458, 392 & 397 of IPC and passed sentence mentioned above whereas convicted the accused appellant-Suresh Chandra for offence u/s. 411 of IPC and passed sentence mentioned above vide judgment dated 21.07.2015 in Session Case No. 67/2015. In these appeals, the judgment is under challenge. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is no eyewitness in this case. The entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence of recovery of axe, pair of “Kadla”, blood stained cloths and last seen. Although the learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of witness of last seen, however, held the appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram guilty for the alleged offence of murder of Smt. Dakhu Devi. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that evidence of last seen was created by the prosecution, which the learned trial court disbelieved but unfortunately relied upon recoveries of silver “Kadla” which were recovered as per information given by appellant, Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram, and on the basis of identification proceedings conducted by PW. 12-Rajpal Singh, the then Magistrate, in which daughter of deceased Smt. Sohini Devi identified the ornaments to be of her mother. As per learned counsel for the appellants it is nowhere proved by the prosecution that from where the other identical silver “Kadla” were put before the Magistrate along with recovered articles for identification. Therefore, in absence of any evidence to that effect, the learned trial court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of identification of “Kadla” because it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in absence of any evidence to that effect, the learned trial court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of identification of “Kadla” because it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also argued that all the articles including silver “Kadla” were deposited in the “Malkhana” but there is no evidence that on which date those “Kadla” were taken back from “Malkhana” and placed for identification before the Magistrate. Therefore, there is no question to state that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that although blood of “B” group was found upon the cloths of the deceased as well as cloths of accused appellant, and upon the axe. As per FSL report, blood of “B” group was found upon all the articles, but it is well known that “B” group is general group, which can be found upon the articles which were said to be recovered and set to the FSL. According to learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of evidence of blood stained cloths and blood of “B” group reported by the FSL, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case so as to connect the appellant-Gopi Ram with the crime because it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the entire prosecution case is based upon concocted story of complainant because neither the recovery of ornaments and axe is proved by the prosecution, nor the report of FSL can be accepted on the ground that blood of “B” group was found upon all the articles. It is thus argued that the accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him because the prosecution has failed to establish complete chain of circumstances so as to conclude that it was the accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram, who has committed the offence and none else. It is thus prayed that the instant appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 14. It is thus prayed that the instant appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 14. So far as accused appellant-Suresh Chandra is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant Suresh Chandra argued that he was the bona-fide purchaser of the ornaments because it was not in his knowledge that the ornaments are stolen property, therefore, in absence of any evidence to this effect, he is entitled to be acquitted from the charge under Section 411 of IPC. 15. Per contra, learned counsel Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that it is a case of brutal murder of old lady, who was residing alone in the house. The accused appellant only to take ornaments from her body, cut down her legs by causing injury of sharp edge weapon axe. During investigation blood stained axe was recovered upon information given by the accused appellant and, so also, blood stained cloths of the accused appellant Gopi Ram were also recovered along with pillow and all the articles were sent for chemical analysis to the FSL. As per FSL report, blood of “B” group was found upon the cloths of deceased as well as accused appellant and axe as well, therefore, it is a case in which the prosecution has led trustworthy evidence, and the trial court has not committed any error in accepting the same and has rightly convicted the accused appellants for the said offences. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that although this case is based upon circumstantial evidence but the information given by accused appellant, the silver ornaments (pair of “Kadla”) were recovered from the shop of Suresh Chandra (appellant), therefore, accused appellant Suresh Chandra was also charge sheeted under Section 411 IPC and after trial he too has been convicted for the said offence as he had purchased the stolen property from accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram. 17. While inviting our attention towards the identification proceedings conducted by witness PW.12 Rajpal Singh, the then Magistrate, it is submitted that in the identification proceedings, the daughter of deceased, Ms. 17. While inviting our attention towards the identification proceedings conducted by witness PW.12 Rajpal Singh, the then Magistrate, it is submitted that in the identification proceedings, the daughter of deceased, Ms. Sonihi @ Chhoti correctly identified the pair of silver “Kadla” to be of her mother, Smt. Dakhu Devi (deceased), therefore, it is obvious that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram for the alleged offence of murder and against Suresh Chandra for purchasing stolen property under Section 411 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that chain of circumstances has been established by the prosecution, therefore, there is no question to say that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, as per finding of learned trial court which is based upon proper assessment of evidence, the conviction of the accused appellant does not require any interference and therefore, the appeals may kindly be dismissed. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the entire evidence and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 19. It is true that the evidence of last seen has not been accepted by the trial court, but after arrest, upon information given by accused appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex. P/7, one set of silver “Kadla” was recovered vide Ex. P/9 in the presence of two witnesses, Poona Ram and Pratap Ram. It is true and Pratap Ram (PW. P/7, one set of silver “Kadla” was recovered vide Ex. P/9 in the presence of two witnesses, Poona Ram and Pratap Ram. It is true and Pratap Ram (PW. 3) turned hostile but accepted his signatures upon the recovery memos and in the cross-examination he further said that: ^^Án'kZ ih&7 o Án'kZ ih&8 dh QnZ rS;kj djrs le; xkao iknw dyka esa gkftj vnkyr eqyfte xksihjke iqfyl ds lkFk Fkk vkSj xksihjhe us gh iqfyl dks nksuksa nqdkusa crkbZ FkhA ftl le; iqfyl us ekSdk ns[kk ml le; eksckbZy dh nqdku can FkhA xkao iknw dyka esa lqukj dh nqdku ls pkanh ds nks dM+ys iqfyl us cjken fd;s FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tks nks pkanh ds dM+ys iqfyl us lqukj dh nqdku ls cjken fd;s og nqdku gkftj vnkyr lqjs'k lksuh dh gks vkSj mldh fu'kkunsgh ls dM+ys cjken fd;s gksA iqfyl us pkanh ds dM+ys cjken fd;s mldh QnZ tCrh Án'kZ ih&9 rS;kj dh Fkh bl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj djok;s Fks] mu dM+yks dks iqfyl us vyx FkSyh esa Mkydj lhy eksgj fd;k FkkA iqfyl us lqukj dh nqdku dk uD'kk ekSdk o gkyr ekSdk Hkh rS;kj fd;k Fkk tks Án'kZ ih&10 gS] bl ij Hkh , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA** 20. Similarly, statements of witness Poona Ram (PW. 15) were recorded and this witness has categorically proved the recovery of pair of silver “Kadla” from the shop of appellant-Suresh Chandra vide Ex. P/9, upon information given by accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram vide Ex. P/7. Further, said silver ornaments were identified in front of Magistrate PW. 12- Rajpal Singh, the then Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Merta by the daughter of deceased Ms. Sohini @ Chhoti. 21. The witness PW. 12- Rajpal Singh, categorically proved that identification of the ornaments was made in front of him and identification proceedings (Ex. P/53) were drawn. Meaning thereby, recovery upon information given by accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram has been proved by the prosecution beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no question to disturb the finding of recovery of silver ornaments at the instance of the accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram, recorded by the learned trial court. 22. Meaning thereby, recovery upon information given by accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram has been proved by the prosecution beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no question to disturb the finding of recovery of silver ornaments at the instance of the accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram, recorded by the learned trial court. 22. We have considered the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact whether ornaments were taken from “Malkhana” and put for identification. The learned trial court while considering the said argument, specifically observed in its judgment that it may be an irregularity but upon statements of PW.12- Rajpal Singh (Judicial Magistrate), before whom the sealed ornaments were put for identification, it cannot be said there is any strength in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the finding of learned trial court in this regard does not require any interference. 23. We have also considered the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that recovery of cloths and axe is false. After perusing the evidence of investigation officer, as well as witness of recovery, we are of the opinion that there is no question to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that recovery of cloths and axe has not been proved because the witness of recovery categorically proved the recoveries of cloths, axe and further all the articles were sent by the S.P., Nagaur, for chemical examination to the FSL vide communication dated 23.05.2007 (Ex. P/29) and as per FSL report (Ex. P/49), upon all the articles viz. blood smeared soil, control soil, “Gudri”, “Odni”, “Lehnga”, “Kanchli”, “Sawl” and shirt, human blood of “B” group was found except “Odni” and “Sawl”. 24. We have considered the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that “B” blood group is general group, which can be found upon the cloths and other articles, in our opinion, there is no strength in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant because as per FSL report blood of “B” group was found upon the axe, shirt of accused appellant and “Gudir”, control soil and blood smeared soil taken from the place of occurrence. Therefore, there is no question to disbelieve the expert evidence of FSL report and the learned trial court has rightly held the accused appellant guilty while considering the circumstantial evidence of FSL report which is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 25. Upon assessment of entire evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that all the parameters to consider circumstantial evidence laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand v. Sarda, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 , are in existence. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt because the chain of circumstances is complete in all respects so as to come to the conclusion that accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram is guilty for committing offence of murder of Smt. Dakhu Devi. 26. In view of above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram, learned trial court has not erred in convicting the accused for offence under Sections 302, 458 & 392 r/w 397 of IPC. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant-Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 954/2015) is hereby dismissed. 27. We have considered the case of co-accused, Suresh Chandra, from whose shop the recovery of silver ornament viz. pair of “Kadla” was effected as per information given by principal accused appellant Gopi Ram @ Gopal Ram. In our opinion, it is true that recovery of ornaments has been proved by the prosecution from the shop of the appellant-Suresh Chandra, but we have no hesitation to hold that there is no iota of evidence to prove that accused appellant-Suresh Chandra was having any knowledge that said silver pair of “Kadla” was the stolen property; and in absence of such type of evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to hold accused appellant-Suresh Chandra guilty for offence under Section 411 of IPC. 28. In view of above, we are of the opinion that accused appellant-Suresh Chandra is entitled for benefit of doubt. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant-Suresh Chandra (DB Criminal Appeal No. 741/2015) is hereby allowed, and the conviction of the appellant Suresh Chandra u/s. 411 IPC is hereby set aside. Appellant-Suresh Chandra is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby discharged.