JUDGMENT : Moolchandani, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.4.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Pali in Sessions Case No.58/2006 - State Vs. Atul and another whereby both the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. 2. Atul and another whereby both the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. 2. The first information report Ex.12 which has been lodged on 22.09.2006 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. at Police Station, Industrial Area, Pali reads as under:- ^^lsok esa] Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk vkS|ksfxd {ks= ikyh fo"k;%& iqfyl dk;Zokgh djokus ckcr egksn;] fuosnu gS fd eSa izkFkhZ fotsUnzflag iq= jkeizlkn tkfr ;kno mez 35 o"kZ fuoklh lfj;k P.S. vkSNk ftyk eSuiqjh mÙkjizns'k gky vxzoky QSDVªh ljnkj laen jksM+ ikyh dh vtZ bl izdkj gS fd eSa o esjk lxk NksVk HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag nksuksa ikyh esa vxzoky QSDVªh esa NikbZ dk dke djrs gS ftlesa etnwjksa dks dke ij yxkus dk Bsdk esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag dk gS bl QSDVªh esa djhc 20 fnu ls ge dke dj jgs gS blls igys D.C.M. QSDVªh esa ge dke djrs Fks ftlesa Hkh esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag dk Bsdk gS bl QSDVªh esa etnwj loZ Jh vrqy iq= vkjkeflag o vrqy dk HkkbZ 'khys"k o dyu iq= jkeiky ;kno fuoklh xaxh uxyk ftyk fQjkstkckn o gekjs xkao ds 'khiw iq= foJkeflag o rqykjke iq= jkeukFk o latw iq= jkeizdk'k Hkh dke djrs Fks lHkh esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag ds Bsdsnkjh esa gh dke djrs Fks ftl ij esjs HkkbZ Bsdsnkj FkkA vrqy o dyu QSDVªh esa dke djus vkrs Fks rc vDlj 'kjkc ihdj dke djus vkrs FksA ftl ij esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag us bu nksuksa dks dke ls fudky fn;k Fkk vkt ls djhcu rhu fnu iwoZ D.C.M. QSDVªh esa esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag rFkk vrqy o dyu ds vkil esa cksy pky gksdj Fkkik eqDdh gqbZ Fkh rc caxkyh iq= lkgcflag o lhiw iq= foJkeflag us NqM+k;k FkkA blds ckn vrqy o dyu nksuksa esjs HkkbZ ls jaft'k j[kus yxs rFkk dy fnukad 21-09-06 dks dyu o vrqy nksuksa nks <kbZ cts gekjs ikl vxzoky QSDVªh esa vk;s bu nksuksa iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag ds NikbZ dke esa enn dh o gekjs ikl [kkuk Hkh [kk;k ml le; QSDVªh esa eSa] 'khiw] caxkyh cxSjk Fks oDr djhc pkj cts esa HkkbZ dks vrqy o dyu nksuksa ?kweus pyus dh ckr dgdj lkFk ys x;s FksA 'kke dks eSa] fotsUnz] rqykjke cxSjk I.T.I. jksM+ ij lkeku ykus x;s ml le; tgka ij esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag dks vrqy o dyu ds lkFk ns[kk Fkk ge dks ns[kdj ;s rhuksa D.C.M. QSDVªh dh rjQ pys x;s rc ge 'kke 8 cts lkeku ysdj vxzoky QSDVªh es vk;s rFkk [kkuk cuk;k o [kkdj lks x;s lqcg rd esjs HkkbZ ds ugha vkus ij eSaus o esjs lkfFk;ksa us esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag] dyu rFkk vrqy rhuksa dh ryk'k QSDVªh;ksa ds vkl ikl dh nqdkuksa ij dh exj fnu Hkj bu rhuksa dk irk ugha pyk ftudh ryk'k djrs gq;s oDr djhcu 6 cts ou foHkkx ,fj;k esa igqaps tgka ij ,fj;k ds [kÏs esa esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag dk 'ko iM+k feyk ftldks ns[kk rks eqag ij o flj ij nkjnkj xEHkhj pksVs vkbZ gqbZ Fkh rFkk [kqu vk;k gqvk Fkk esjs HkkbZ iIiwfalg mQZ ersUnzflag 'ko [kÏs ds ckgj fudky dj [kÏs ds ikl esa ou foHkkx ,fj;k esa j[kk rFkk ogka ls ge lsB ekaxhyky D.C.M. QSDVªh esa x;s o ;g ckr crkbZ esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag dh gR;k eqyfte vrqy o dyu ,d jk; gksdj ;kstuk o rjhds ls /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls pksVs igqapk dj gR;k dj nh rFkk nksuksa Qjkj gks x;s esjs HkkbZ iIiwflag mQZ ersUnzflag dh ikl eksckbZy uksfd;k dEiuh dk Fkk ftlds uEcj 9982143033 Fkk tc eksckby ikl esa ugha feyk fjiksVZ djrk gqa dkjokbZ djkos Sd/- fotsUnzflag^^ 3. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the impugned judgment is erroneous because the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence properly and nothing incriminatory has emerged from the evidence of the prosecution and there are serious contradictions in the prosecution case but without any positive, ocular evidence and despite there being weak circumstantial evidence, learned trial court has held the accused-appellants guilty, so the appeal may be allowed and both the accused-appellant persons be acquitted. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that nothing abnormal has occurred in the prosecution evidence and the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence, there was enmity between deceased and the accused, so accused persons persuaded deceased as if, they were on compromise to go together and further killed him. Prosecution has adduced reliable evidence against both the accused-appellants, so there is no infirmity in the findings of learned trial court and appeal does not bear any force, so it be dismissed. 4. Heard both the sides and examined the record of the learned trial Court as well as perused the impugned judgment. Ex.P.12-FIR has been lodged by Vijendra Singh, brother of the deceased in which both the accused are explicitly named and according to the version, raised in the FIR context of immediate enmity has also been divulged with specific contention that the accused persons, under pretext of a compromise, persuaded deceased to go with them from where he did not return and subsequent killed, his body was found in a secluded area in a ditch. Ex.P.32 FIR Kalta is a replica. 5. Appraisal and appreciation of the evidence available on the record is positive in nature and entire evidence if clubbed and read together, gives a clinching and reliable evidence against both the appellant -accused persons. The prosecution evidence of the witnesses examined, indicates as beneath:- 6. PW.6 Vijendra, the complainant, while examined, has said that deceased Pappu Singh was his younger brother and he knows both the accused Atul and Kallan, present in the Court. Pappu Singh had earlier taken dyeing contract in the factory and they were engaged together under that contract along with Atul and Kallan, after DCM, dyeing job was done in Agarwal Factory for about 20 days and its Thekedar was Pappu Singh. Atul and Kallan were also worked in Agarwal Factory along with. Pappu Singh had earlier taken dyeing contract in the factory and they were engaged together under that contract along with Atul and Kallan, after DCM, dyeing job was done in Agarwal Factory for about 20 days and its Thekedar was Pappu Singh. Atul and Kallan were also worked in Agarwal Factory along with. He has further said that labour of muslim community used to come late there and were habitual of coming under drunken position, they used to come late at 12 to 1 and fashioned to claim whole wages. He along with other labours complained this to the thekedar by saying that they were doing more work, despite, being paid similar wages vis-a-vis accused persons and so on this count, Pappu Singh admonished the accused persons not to come after drinking liquor at proper time and because of this a scuffle resulted amongst them, first in the DCM factory, further in Agarwal Factory on 20/09/2006 and he was present in the factory at that time. He has also said that he, Seepu, Bengali and Sanjay interfered and separated them from scuffle. He has further said that then the accused had threatened Pappu Singh to eliminate him. On next day of 21, accused came at about half past two under influence of liquor in Agarwal Factory and purposely reconciled with Pappu Singh and helped in the work performance an important fact has also narrated by this witness that at about 4 to 5 in the evening, both came and took away Pappu Singh towards Kirana Store. Later, he Tularam, Sanjay went to the shop of Kirana Store to buy ration, wherefrom Atul took a cigarette packet subsequently Atul, Kallan and Pappu Singh went away towards I.T.I forest but he came back after purchasing ration and slept after meal. It has further stated by this witness that by 22 date, Pappu Singh did not return, so he made telephones in the morning at 8 to 9 a.m. to his relatives to Jodhpur, then it was informed that Pappu Singh did not visit there, which raised a suspicion, so Seepu, Bengali, Tula Ram went to search Pappu Singh, who was searched at several places by four to five, when they approached near forest, then they found dead body of Pappu Singh, lying in a ditch. The ‘corpse’ was having sharp weapon injuries and blood was oozing, two pieces of belt were there and trouser of Pappu Singh was lying there apart from his body, three buttons and four to five stones tainted with blood were lying there. A sky colour footwear (Chappal) was also lying there with a blood spot and a pouch of Miraj was also lying there. It has further said by this witness that they brought out the body from the ditch and went to DCM Factory to inform Mangilal and went to Police Station, where they lodged FIR, which is Ex.P.12 which bears his signatures from A to B. Police got his signatures after registering the FIR. Police had ‘witnessed’ the spot and prepared Ex.P.4. Seizure of two pieces of belt, chappal, three buttons of bushirt, baalpent and three pieces of blood stained stones, open pouch of Miraj Jarda were made by police vide Ex.P.5, which contains his signatures. He has further ratified Ex.P.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and has accepted his signatures over these documents, in his cross examination, he has said that Pappu Singh was working in Pali for three to four years, whereas, he was there for about last three months. Pappu Singh was bachelor seldom, out of fun and to enjoy, he used liquor. He was of about 28 to 29 years old. He has further said that he used to remit earning money to his home and was not a lascivious person and used to visit his home on festivals. He has also said that Harpeet, Seepu, Sanjay, Umesh, Tula Ram and Govind Singh were of his Village, having some relationship. He has further said that when he joined DCM factory, then there was Pappu Singh’s theka. Factory owner was Kailash of Jodhpur. He has also said that under contract of Pappu Singh, 10 to 11 people used to work. He was a dyeing-thekedar and DCM Factory was having 18 tables, whereas Agarwal Factory was having 12 tables. He has also said that he did not work with accused persons on a single table, but worked along-with them and the wages were payable according to the job, he has further said that in DCM Factory, they and accused persons used to prepare their meals separately and their attendance was being recorded, so the dates were known. He has also said that he did not work with accused persons on a single table, but worked along-with them and the wages were payable according to the job, he has further said that in DCM Factory, they and accused persons used to prepare their meals separately and their attendance was being recorded, so the dates were known. He has further said that Ex.P.12 was dictated by Umesh in thana, who was with them in searching and detecting the body. He has reiterated that on date 21, Pappu Singh had worked in Agarwal Factory and Bengali, Seepu, Sanju, Tularam and Harpeet were also there, as workers on that day, when at two to half past two, Atul and Kallan came there drunken. On 21/09/2006, while Pappu Singh was taken away by them purposely, he was washing his legs and hands at, tanki near tables. He has further said that on 21/09/2006, it did not rain but on 22/09/2006, when they were recovering the body, then thin showers had fallen, he has also said that the body was found in the area, where people used to go for defecation, shops, stadium or factory were not there. The ditch in which the body was lying was three to four feet deep. 7. PW.3 Tula Ram has also said that Mahendra Singh @ Pappu Singh was known to him and he knows both the accused Atul and Kallan, present in the Court, who used to work with him in the factory. Pappu Singh @ Mahendra Singh was having contract of dyeing and Pappu Singh had engaged them all in the factory. On 21/09/2006, at about 7 in the evening, when both these accused went away with Pappu Singh, then he bathed and prepared meal, later both these accused and Pappu Singh did not return, he has also said that a scuffle had occurred between Pappu Singh and accused persons about ten days prior to the incident, both the accused persons were late comers in the factory, so Pappu Singh asked them not to be late so, the scuffle had taken, before him, he has further said that he too had searched Pappu Singh and his body was found, his body was recovered from a ditch which is situated behind the DCM factory. He has further said that Pappu Singh’s face was damaged and deceased was taken away by both the accused persons, who caused the fatal injuries. He has further said that Pappu Singh had denied both the accused persons from job engagement, but later the relations reconciled, in cross-examination, he has further said that it is correct that both the accused persons used to come late in drunken position and Pappu Singh had asked them not to be late, he has further said that he knows both the accused persons because they worked with him, though they were not worked on a same table in the factory and on 21.09.2006 he was working in Agarwal Factory, he has said that it is correct that about 20 days earlier he was engaged in Agarwal Factory, after leaving DCM factory. He has also said that Pappu Singh had taken contract of dyeing only and he was doing dyeing job there. He has also said that on 21/09/2006, Pappu Singh had worked with him. He has further said that on 22/09/2006, he had come to take ration and none informed him about the dead body, but he had himself searched it and seen the body in a trench on 22/09/2006 at 8 p.m, When the body was seen, some dark had fallen and the period was of full moon. He has also said that on 22/09/2006, slight showers had taken place, but showers were not intense, he has also said that trouser was not there on the body of Pappu Singh and it was lying apart. He has also said that three to four persons, brought out the body from the ditch, which was about 2 km away from Agarwal Factory and there is a distance of one and half km between DCM factory and Agarwal Factory. He has also said that after ousting the body from ditch, they went to factory to inform Mangilal. He has also said that three to four persons, brought out the body from the ditch, which was about 2 km away from Agarwal Factory and there is a distance of one and half km between DCM factory and Agarwal Factory. He has also said that after ousting the body from ditch, they went to factory to inform Mangilal. He has also said that Pappu Singh was brotherly to him, though this witness has been declared hostile because of non-corroboration of certain aspects of police statements, but the entire narration does not disclose any discrepancy or frailty, apart from Vijendra, this witness has also corroborated this aspect in his evidence that deceased was taken away by both the accused persons from where he did not return and on next date, on search, his dead body was found with injuries. It has also been stated by both these witnesses that a scuffle had taken place between the deceased and both the accused persons and both the accused persons were late comers in the factory, often under drunken position but claiming full wages. 8. PW.4 Sanjay has also corroborated same kind of narration in his statements and he too has said that on 21/09/2006 at about half past two in the day, both accused were present in the Court, came in Agarwal Factory and worked there and at about 4 p.m., they took away Matendra Singh, who is also known as Pappu Singh and both used to work with Pappu Singh, both the accused persons took away Pappu Singh outside by saying for a round. On that night, he went to the ration shop then he, Sanju and Tularam saw from the shop that both the accused persons Atul and Kallan, took away thekedar Pappu Singh towards station, then he went to own home and slept after meals and worked next day upto four to five then he, Vijendra and Seepu went together to search Thekedar Pappu Singh, whose body was found in the ditch, which was brought of the ditch by them after coming back to factory, it was informed to Mangilal, and the report was lodged. He too has confirmed Ex.P.4 to 11 and has accepted his signatures on these documents, he has also narrated an important aspect that both these accused persons used to come late in the factory in drunken state and used to hurl abuses to the thekedar. A scuffle had also taken place with Thekedar, at that time, he was there in the factory, in his cross-examination, he has said that deceased Matendra Singh was not his real brother but belongs to his Village and family, he too has said that 10 to 12 persons used to work with Pappu Singh, who was a dyeing-work thekedar. He has said that he had worked with both the accused persons on same table and factory, where 12 tables were there and he knows all who work there, he has also said that Atul and Kallan had twice taken liquor before him. He has also said that on the date of twenty first, work had taken place in the factory. He has further said that he had gone to shop with Tullaram and Seepu and had seen all the three going together, while coming back from the shop, he has also said that he had witnessed accused persons and deceased going together from a distance of about 20 feet. He has also said that in the night of twenty first, Pappu Singh did not return to factory and on the date of twenty second he, Tularam, Harpreet, Vijendra and Umesh worked in the factory. 9. PW. 5 Umesh has also said that he knows Pappu Singh @ Matendra Singh and accused persons Atul and Kallan and all were working under Pappu Singh’s “Theka”, he has said that both the accused persons, present in the Court used to come late in the factory, under intoxication and worked under Pappu Singh’s contractship, he has also said that Atul and Kallan were habitual to come late and used to claim full wages, which was complained to Pappu Singh that he was working more, whereas wages were being distributed similar, so Pappu Singh had asked both the accused persons Atul and Kallan to come in time and to obtain equal wage, else it will not do, so Pappu Singh once ousted them, when they did not yield, so they were nurturing animosity. He has further said that on 20.09.2006 both accused came under drunken position and scuffled with Pappu Singh then Bengali, Seepu and vijendra spared them, both the accused gave abuses to Pappu Singh and threatened Pappu Singh to be killed. He has further said that on 21.09.2006 at about two to half past two both came in the Agrawal factory and helped Pappu Singh after finishing job, they persuaded Pappu Singh to go alongwith them, to have a round. He has also said that at that time, he was in factory and seen them taking away deceased Pappu Singh, after that he, Harpreet, Vijendra, Seepu and Bengali went to fetch ration and they also witnessed accused Atul and Kallan taking away, Pappu Singh from a distance of 40 to 50 meters, going towards DCM factory in isolated side after that pappu Singh was not found live, then they came in Agrawal Factory and took meal, waited for Pappu Singh but he did not return, so after taking meal they slept, on the date of 22, Pappu Singh did not return, so Vijendra and others went to search him after finishing their work, they also searched Pappu Singh and his body was found in secluded area in a ditch. 10. PW-7 Shipu Singh is also a witness, who has worked with the accused persons and deceased and is a witness of “witnessing” scuffle and subsequently observing them, going together and he has also said that he knows both the accused and deceased Pappu Singh. Pappu Singh was having contact of dyeing and accused worked under him earlier, later scuffle happened with Pappu Singh and accused persons, because accused persons were habitual of drinking and reporting late. So, thekedar had asked them not to drink and not to come beyond time. He has further said that on the date of 21 accused persons came, in agarwal factory. Pappu Singh was working in Agarwal Factory, for previous twenty days and accused were working under him on the date of 21 at about half past two in the day, accused persons came in Agarwal Factory and worked with Pappu Singh and ate with him, then the accused persons went towards Ration shop with Pappu Singh, but Pappu Singh did not come back and his body was found next day evening at 7 to 7:30 PM. He has also said that a dispute had earlier happened between Pappu Singh and accused persons, which took place 22 to 24 days before the incident and he had acted to spare them out of the scuffle. He has also said that he had been to the spot, where the body of Pappu Singh was found. He has also said that Pappu Singh went outside the factory, then he Vijayender gone to take ration from the shop and he has accepted his signature on Ex.P.9. He has also accepted to work with the accused persons on the same table. He has further said that scuffle had occurred in DCM Factory. He has also said that he had seen Pappu Singh paying money to the accused persons, some day two hundred were paid and another day four hundred and whatever they demanded it was paid by Pappu Singh to them, he has further said that accused persons often demanded money from Pappu Singh after disputing with Pappu Singh. He has also said that he had worked on the date on 21 upto 5 PM and had gone to trace Pappu Singh on that date of 22. 11. Hardeep PW-8 is also a labour, who too has said that he worked under Pappu Singh and knows Pappu Singh, as well as, accused persons very well. He has also said that the accused persons made a scuffle in DCM factory, as well as, in Agarwal Factory and accused were habitual drinkers and late comers, which was objected to by Pappu Singh. He has also said that at the time of scuffle, he was present and spared them from fighting and has said that Harpeet was also played a role in sparing them from scuffle. He has further said that on the date of 21, accused persons had come in the factory at half past 2 and after working with Pappu Singh, ate there and went with Pappu Singh at about 4 from factory. Later Pappu Singh never came to factory and on the date of 22, his dead body was found. He has further said that when accused persons took away Pappu Singh, then he was in factory and he had seen them going together. Later Pappu Singh never came to factory and on the date of 22, his dead body was found. He has further said that when accused persons took away Pappu Singh, then he was in factory and he had seen them going together. He has also said that he had gone to search Papu Singh and his body was found, in cross-examination, he has also said that it was apprised him that Pappu Singh’s body was lying but he too had gone to search him and found his body there. PW-2 Rameshwar Singh has become hostile but this shop keeper-witness has admitted that he was having a shop there of Kirana and Pappu Singh used to buy kirana from his shop and his paying khata was maintained with there. He has also said that on 22.9.2006 in the evening, he had heard that Pappu Singh was murdered and his dead body was found in the forest area, so evidence of this witness establishes that he was running a Kirana shop there and the labour of that area, specially Pappu Singh, was a regular ration purchaser from his shop, though this witness has also declared hostile but enough relevant has been uttered by this witness. 12. PW-9 Babu Lal, recovery witness of Exp.P.13, P.14, P.15 and P.16 has admitted, his signatures on recovery related documents and has also said that signatures were done by him with freewill without any pressure, likewise another witness PW-16 Karan Singh has also become hostile but he has admitted his signatures on exhibit P.25, P.26, P.27 and this much has also been said by this witness, that he had never signed any paper without reading or having been read over to him, prior to this and has admitted his signatures on the documents and has accepted to sign the same under trusting police. Mool Singh PW-15 has also accepted his signatures on Ex.25, 26 and 27 and has also said that trusting police he has signed the papers. 13. Dr. Mool Singh PW-15 has also accepted his signatures on Ex.25, 26 and 27 and has also said that trusting police he has signed the papers. 13. Dr. S.C. Jain PW-17 a Doctor conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased, has said that on 23.9.2006, he was posted at Bangar Hospital, Pali, where he had conducted post mortem on the body of Matender Singh S/o Ram Prasad and he has enumerated 14 injuries on the body with subscale hemotoma in occipital region of right side and fracture of six ribs and accepted his report and signature on Ex.P.28. He has said that cause of death was head injury associated with injury to left lung and at the time of post mortem duration of death was 1 to 3 days. On perusal of Ex.28 similar kind of cause of death, noting is there with details of injuries. 14. PW 19 Raju Singh is a Constable, who deposited articles on 22.9.2006 in police station, while having charge of Malkhana and this witness has asserted that further on 23.9.2006 one sealed cloth bag was also deposited by Puran Singh, S.H.O., likewise on 6.10.2006, one white cloth bag containing iron sariya was deposited and on 12.10.2006, two sealed bags were also deposited by Puran Singh and on 17.10.2006 12 packets were given to Constable Sohan Lal vide road No.79 for depositing in the FSL through S.P. Saheb, he has also said that on 18.10.2006, Constable Sohan Lal brought back the sealed items with an objection, so the articles were redeposited in thana and on 19.10.2006 vide road No.81/06 same were given to Constable for depositing in the FSL and on 20.10.2006 he submitted receipt No.325/06 pertaining depositing the same in FSL, which was consigned by him to S.H.O. He has also said that original Malkhana Register Ex.P.31 and its certified copy is Ex.P.31A. PW-14 Sohan Lal, Constable depositing the articles in F.S.L. has also said that he had obtained 12 sealed packets for depositing in FSL and for getting removal of objections, redeposited them in thana and on next day after obtaining the same and went to S.P. office, where the packets were given to Constable Kishan Lal, after forwarding letter the same were deposited in F.S.L., Jodhpur by obtaining receipt dated 20.10.2006. He has also said that during the course of his custody, the samples remained well secured and sealed and has said that forwarding letter is Ex.P.21 and P.22 which bears his signatures and and receipt is Ex.23 and FSL objection is Ex.24. PW-18 Constable Kishan Lal has also said that on 19.10.2006, he was LHC in SP Office, Pali in FSL section where 12 sealed packets were with papers were brought by Constable Shyamlal, which after removal of objections were brought vide Ex.29 after preparing forwarding letter, he gave them to Sohan Lal and forwarding letter in Exhibit 30. PW-11 Richhpal Singh, Supervisor of DCM Factory has turned hostile but he has said that Pappu Singh alias Matender Singh was known to him and he has also accepted having sold his mobile phone to Pappu Singh and has said that a telephone call was given to him at Jodhpur relating to information of murder of Pappu Singh, who was engaged in dye job work in factory and this phone was made by Mangi Lal Singhvi, who works in the factory. PW-13 Bahadur Das, A.S.I. has said that on 17.10.2006 he was posted in the S.P. office F.S.L. in Branch as ASI, on that day Constable Sohan Lal brought sealed packet relating to case No.189/2006 and he prepared a forwarding letter and on 18.10.2006, the packets came back with objection and Shyamlal went back to police thana after informing him and Ex.P.21 is the forwarding letter. PW-12 Amrit Lal is a Constable and witness of Exp.P.19 and P.20 arrest memos, this witness has also accepted his signatures on these documents. 15. PW-20 Puran Singh is Investigating Officer and he has said that Gajender Singh had given him Ex.P.12 Tehriri FIR 22.9.2006, which was endorsed by him and on the basis of Ex.12, FIR No.189 dated 22.9.2006 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was registered, he has confirmed Ex.4 and recovery of Article vide Ex.5 and sealing them vide Ex.P.6. 15. PW-20 Puran Singh is Investigating Officer and he has said that Gajender Singh had given him Ex.P.12 Tehriri FIR 22.9.2006, which was endorsed by him and on the basis of Ex.12, FIR No.189 dated 22.9.2006 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was registered, he has confirmed Ex.4 and recovery of Article vide Ex.5 and sealing them vide Ex.P.6. All the exhibits relating to investigating Ex.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 have been ratified by this witness and he has also said that vide Ex.P.33 information under Section 27 an Iron axel was recovered on the instance of accused Atul vide Exhibit P.13 and its spot map was prepared which is Ex.P.15., likewise on the information and at the instance of another accused Kallan recovery of blood spotted stone vide Ex.P.14 andP.34 was made and its spot map is stated to be Ex.P.14 and P.16, likewise on the information of Atul vide Ex.35 his blood tainted cloths have also said to have been recovered vide Ex.P.26 and P.27, pant and shirt of accused Kallan have also stated to have been recovered on his instance vide Ex.P.36 through Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.327, he has also confirmed Ex.P.37 and P.38 and Ex.P.17 and Ex. P.39 during the course of testimony, the articles have also been ratified and narrated accordingly by this witness vide Articles one to twelve he has also asserted FSL report being Ex.40 and submission of charge-sheet against the accused persons, the Investigation Officer has also asserted that he had found, in his investigation, that three days before the incident an event of scuffle had occurred between the deceased and accused persons Atul and Kallan, he also said that place of recovery was open spot but it was an area of dense bushes, away from public movements. 16. Scrutiny and perusal of Ex.40 FSL report establishes that all the three stone pieces, bushirt, banyan and underwear, iron axel another stone piece, both the shirts have been found stained with human blood of same “O” group and Ex.41 suggests matching of the buttons recovered, which are also indicative of giving positively and substantially to the prosecution story. All the prosecution witnesses have candidly said that both the accused persons were habitual drunkard and late-comers and were engaged under the contract of deceased. All the prosecution witnesses have candidly said that both the accused persons were habitual drunkard and late-comers and were engaged under the contract of deceased. It has also come in the evidence of all the “labour”- witnesses that their late coming and drinking habit was objected to by the co-workers and deceased contractor Pappu Singh as well, which resulted in a physical scuffle amongst them and several witness-co-workers intermeddled in sparing them from scuffle, witnesses have also narrated this significant fact that both the accused persons had made a verbal ultimatum of eliminating to the deceased and after some interval of time, the accused persons falsely behaved in such away pretendly that as they had come to the terms with deceased so worked with him and subsequently persuaded him to go alongwith them, which was witnessed by several co-workers and it has also come in the evidence of the prosecution that later, when they were on the ration buying, “witnessed”, both the accused persons, going with the deceased towards secluded area from where the deceased Pappu Singh never came back and on search next day was found dead in isolated spot and his body was found in to a ditch and nearby blood stained stone, chapals were also detected and on the instance of the accused persons, blood tainted stones and iron axel and blood tainted cloths of the accused persons were recovered and on their examination, all the seizures were found tainted with human “O” group blood. Some of the prosecution witnesses have also asserted some showers had occurred, so, narration of defence witness disclosing that some shower had fallen, does not mar or weakens the testimony of the prosecution, rather it gives a touch of truth to the testimony of the prosecution, both the accused persons have only stated in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that they were unknown with the deceased and never worked with him, which too is not enough to dispel material evidence of several witnesses of the prosecution, both the accused persons are resident of Village Naglaganj, District Firojabad, P.S. Jasrama, UP and were arrested in industrial area Pali, their apparels have also been found blood tainted with “O” blood group, which have been recovered on their instance, likewise, the stone pieces and iron axel, which were objects of causing assault, have also been found tainted with “O” group blood and all these have recovered on the instance/s of both the accused persons, both the accused persons were last seen together with the deceased person Pappu Singh to whom they took along from factory towards secluded area in which direction, later Pappu Singh was found murdered. 17. In the matters relating to circumstantial evidence Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 has laid down the conditions of circumstantial evidence on which conviction could be made in view of Section 3 of Evidence Act which postulates as under :- “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” And in Bodhraj @ Bodha And Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted number of judgments and held as under:- “10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99 , Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316 , Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330 , State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt. And the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21) “21. And the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21) “21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence,” like wise In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.” And the similar principles were reiterated in Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205 ,Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124 and Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 and a number of other decisions. 18. The aforesaid scrutiny of the evidence is enough to connect the accused persons with the crime so, we feel no reason to interfere with the findings of learned trial court, since the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the rhymes of reasonable doubt against both the accused persons with reliable evidence. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed, as such, the findings of the trial court are confirmed and appeal is dismissed.