Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3021 (ALL)

ANAKPAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-12-21

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, RAHUL CHATURVEDI

body2017
JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.) 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Advocate assisted by Sri Vinod Singh and Amber Khanna, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA assisted by Sri Kunwar Ritesh Singh, State Law Officer for the state. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants Anakpal (A1), Neeraj (A2) and Dheeraj (A3) against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshahar in Session Trial No. 1102 of 2009 (State Vs. Anakpal and two others) arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2009, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Jahangirabad, District-Bulandshahar by which they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each together with default clause under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each together with default clause under Section 201 I.P.C. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 17.06.2009 P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar son of Radheylal Sharma, resident of Village Kuraina, Police Station-Jahangirabad, District-Bulandshahar gave a written report Ext. Ka1 at Police Station-Jahangirabad at about 9:15 P.M. stating therein that while he was raising the boundary of his rice field on 16.06.2009 at about 6 P.M., his younger brother Bhoora @ Vipnesh came on his motorcycle from the village and told him that his wife was suffering from acute stomach ache and asked him to go home. On receiving the aforesaid information, the informant left for his house on the same motorcycle leaving behind his brother Bhoora in the rice field. At that very point of time, accused-appellants Neeraj (A2) and Dheeraj (A3) who were residents of the same village as P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar arrived at the informant's field, each carrying two pouches of country made liquor in their hands and when informant inquired from them about the purpose of their coming to his field, they stated that they had come to give company to Bhoora who was all alone in the field. Thereafter the informant went to his house and got his wife examined by the midwife and his wife soon became normal, but he stayed back in his house to look after his wife as she was pregnant. Thereafter the informant went to his house and got his wife examined by the midwife and his wife soon became normal, but he stayed back in his house to look after his wife as she was pregnant. However, when he discovered in the morning that his brother had not returned, he started searching him and inquiring about him from the villagers. While he was going towards his field, he met his uncle Gopi son of Narayan Prasad who told him that when he had gone to his tubewell yesterday in the evening to have a look at his munji crop, he had seen Bhoora sitting at his tubewell along with all the three accused-appellants and drinking liquor. Thereafter the informant along with his brother Dinesh and uncle Harsaran went to the house of the accused-appellants and when he inquired from them about his brother, they informed him that his brother was no longer alive and he would not be able to even find his dead body and challenged him to do whatever he wanted to do against them. Thereafter the informant went to his field along with the other villagers in search of his brother and upon noticing some blood spots at several places in the field of Prahlad and Pyarelal, he followed the trail of blood spots and reached a spot in the field of Pyarelal where he saw a heap of fresh mud and when the informant and the other villagers removed the mud, they found the dead body of informant's brother Bhoora buried under the heap with marks of injuries on his neck and other parts of his body. 4. In the written report, it was further alleged that informant's brother Bhoora had ploughed the field of accused-appellants for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/- which the accused-appellants had failed to pay him, despite repeated demands made by him in this regard from them which was not taken very kindly by the accused-appellants Anakpal (A1) and his sons Neeraj (A2) and Dheeraj (A3) and on account of the aforesaid enmity, they had committed the murder of Bhoora. 5. On the basis of the written report Ext. Ka1, Case Crime No. 213 of 2009, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. was registered against the accused-appellants. The matter was investigated by P. W. 6 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi. 6. 5. On the basis of the written report Ext. Ka1, Case Crime No. 213 of 2009, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. was registered against the accused-appellants. The matter was investigated by P. W. 6 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi. 6. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the three accused-appellants under Section 302/201 I.P.C. before the C.J.M., Bulandshshar who committed the accused for trial to the Court of Session Judge, Bulandshshar where the case was registered as Session Trial No. 1102 of 2009 and made over from there for trial to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshahar who on the basis of the material collected during investigation and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under Section 302/201 I.P.C. against the accused-appellants who abjured the charge and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution in order to prove it's case against the accused-appellants examined P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar, P. W. 2 Gopi and P. W. 3 Dinesh as witnesses of fact while P. W. 4 Mukesh Kumar, P. W. 5 Head Moharrir Shiv Raj Singh and P. W. 6 I.O. Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi were produced as formal witnesses. The documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses comprised of written report Ext. Ka1, postmortem report of deceased Bhoora Ext. Ka2, chek F.I.R. Ext. Ka3, G.D. entry Ext. Ka4, site plan of the place of recovery of dead body of Bhoora Ext. Ka5, recovery memo of handle of sharp edged weapon Ext. Ka6, recovery memo of bloodstained and plain earth collected from the place of occurrence Ext. Ka7, inquest report of deceased Bhoora Ext. Ka8, police form no. 13, photo lash, letter addressed to R.I. and letter addressed to C.M.O. Ext. Ka9 to Ext. Ka12, deceased's towel allegedly seized from the place of recovery of dead body Ext. Ka13, recovery memo of the crime weapon Ext. Ka14, site plan of the place of recovery of crime weapon Ext. Ka15, charge sheet Ext. Ka16 and report of the forensic lab Ext. Ka17. 8. The accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case and alleged that the witnesses had given false evidence against them. The informant had falsely implicated the appellants in collusion with the police on the basis of fabricated documents. Ka15, charge sheet Ext. Ka16 and report of the forensic lab Ext. Ka17. 8. The accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case and alleged that the witnesses had given false evidence against them. The informant had falsely implicated the appellants in collusion with the police on the basis of fabricated documents. Accused-appellant Anakpal (A1) further stated that on the date of the occurrence, he was working in Hydle Department and on account of village party bandhi he had been falsely arraigned as accused in this case. He filed a certificate issued by the Junior Engineer, Electrical Sub-Station, Jahangirabad paper no. 49B for proving his alibi. The appellants however failed to examine any witness in defence. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshshar, after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted all the accused-appellants under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and awarded aforesaid sentences to them. 10. Hence this appeal. 11. At the very outset, it may be stated that accused-appellant no. 2, Neeraj died during the pendency of this appeal and hence this appeal stood abated qua accused-appellant no. 2, Neeraj by order of this Court dated 4.10.2017. 12. Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the surviving appellants has submitted that from the record, it transpires that the accused-appellants had informed the informant P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar after 9 A.M. on 17.06.2009 that they had committed the murder of his brother Bhoora, even then P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar instead of going to the police station and lodging the FIR of the incident, set out in the search of his brother and the FIR of the occurrence was lodged at about 7:15 P.M. on the same day after the dead body of the deceased was allegedly found buried under a pile of mud in the field of Pyare Lal. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR clearly indicates that the prosecution claim that all the three accused-appellants had confessed before P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar that they had committed the murder of the deceased Bhoora is false and concocted and it is apparent that after the dead body of the deceased Bhoora was discovered in the field of Pyare Lal late in the afternoon, the FIR of the incident was lodged by Munesh Kumar P. W. 1 after due deliberations and consultations falsely implicating the accused-appellants due to previous enmity. He next submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged by informant P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar after an inordinate delay which indicates that the same was prepared after due deliberation and consultation after the dead body of the deceased was found. He further submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence, learned trial court while convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. has not observed the parameters laid down by this court as well as the Apex Court that are to be followed for recording the conviction in a case based upon circumstantial evidence. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses of fact which go to the root of the case and totally demolish the prosecution story but the same have not been examined by the learned Trial Judge in proper perspective. The circumstances against the accused-appellants as per the case of the prosecution inter alia are :- (i) that the deceased Bhoora had ploughed the agricultural field of the accused-appellants in lieu of consideration of Rs. 14,000/- out of which Rs. 3000/- only was paid by them to him and the remaining amount was not paid despite repeated demands made by deceased-Bhoora from them in this regard which was not taken very kindly by the accused-appellants and as a result, they had become inimical towards him and eventually committed his murder; (ii) that P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar had left the deceased Bhoora in his rice field in the company of accused-appellants Neeraj (A2) and Dheeraj (A3) at about 6 A.M. on 16.06.2009; (iii) that thereafter P. W. 2 Gopi had seen the deceased-Bhoora sitting at his tubewell consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants. (iv) The extra judicial confession made by the appellants before P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar that Dinesh and Harsaran had committed the murder of Bhoora and concealed his dead body; (v) Recovery of the handle of daanv from the place where the dead body of the deceased was discovered; (vi) Recovery of 'lohe ka daanv' allegedly used by the appellants for committing the murder of Bhoora pursuant to the disclosure statements made by accused-appellants Neeraj (A2) and Dheeraj (A3) after their arrest on which the forensic expert had found human blood and the medical evidence on record which proved that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased could be caused by 'daanv'. 13. He next submitted that the prosecution failed to prove any of the aforesaid circumstances by adducing any cogent and reliable evidence. Moreover the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not fully establish the involvement of the accused-appellants. Neither the chain of circumstances is complete nor the aforementioned circumstances unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. Since the prosecution failed to prove it's case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, neither the recorded conviction of the accused-appellants nor the sentences awarded to them can be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 14. Per contra Sri J. K. Upadhyay, learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that the prosecution has fully met the standard of proof which is required to convict a person, in case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the trial court fully established the involvement of the accused-appellants. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Before proceeding to examine the circumstantial evidence on record, we consider it appropriate to first have a glance at the law on how a Court should consider a case of circumstantial evidence. 17. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116 , the Apex Court held as under : "153. 16. Before proceeding to examine the circumstantial evidence on record, we consider it appropriate to first have a glance at the law on how a Court should consider a case of circumstantial evidence. 17. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116 , the Apex Court held as under : "153. (2) 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, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (5) 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." 18. In M. G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 , the Apex Court held, that if the circumstances proved in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused, or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. When it is held that a certain fact has been proved, then the question that arises is whether such a fact leads to the inference of guilt on the part of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, and a final inference of guilt against him must be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, and is entirely consistent with his guilt. 19. Similarly, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), the Apex Court held as under: "Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance where the guilt or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 20. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance where the guilt or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 20. While dealing with the same issue the Apex Court in paragraph 18 of its judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 has observed as here under : Thus, in view of the above, the Court must consider a case of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 21. We now proceed to examine the circumstantial evidence in this case in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief has fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. Ext. Ka3 by deposing that while he was working in his rice field, his younger brother Bhoora @ Vipnesh came on his motorcycle on 16.06.2009 at about 6 P.M. and informed him that his wife is suffering from acute stomach ache and hence he should go home on which P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar left for his home on his motorcycle leaving behind his brother Bhoora in his rice field. At that very point of time, accused-appellants Neeraj (A2) and Dheeraj (A3) also arrived at his field, each of them carrying two pouches of country made liquor in their hands and when the informant asked them about the reason for their visit, they told him that they had come to give company to Bhoora who was alone in the rice field. He also proved the motive for committing the crime by deposing that his brother Bhoora had ploughed the field of appellants on their promise to pay him a sum of Rs. 14,000/- in lieu of his service out of which only a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid to him and when he demanded payment of the balance amount of Rs. 11,000/- from them, they became inimical towards him and committed his murder. 22. It is true that in the FIR, P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar had stated that the accused-appellants had promised to pay a sum of Rs. 11,000/- to the deceased in lieu of ploughing their field and he had not stated about any amount being paid by them to the deceased but he in his examination-in-chief deposed that the remuneration which the accused-appellants had promised to pay to the deceased Bhoora for ploughing their field was Rs. 14,000/- out of which Rs. 3000/- was paid to him and the remaining amount was outstanding. The aforesaid discrepancy in the testimony of P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar with regard to the amount of remuneration which the accused-appellants had agreed to pay vis-a-vis the FIR, in our opinion, is too trivial to shake the credibility of P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar. 23. P. W. 3 Dinesh in his evidence tendered before the trial court, deposed about the extra judicial confession made by the accused-appellants before him and P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar and the recovery of the dead body of Bhoora from the field of Pyare Lal. 24. P. W. 2 Gopi in his evidence tendered before the trial court deposed in his examination-in-chief that while he had gone to his tubewell to have a look at his 'munji crop' on the date of the occurrence at about 7:30 P.M., he had seen Bhoora consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants. Next day when P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar made inquiries from him about Bhoora, he had disclosed the aforesaid fact to him after which he and P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar had gone to the house of accused-appellant Anakpal (A1) where all the three accused-appellants were present and who on being quizzed by the P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar about the deceased, told him that his brother was not alive as they had killed him and challenged him to do whatever he wanted to do against them. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased-Bhoora was found buried under a heap of mud in the field of Pyarelal. The motive of the accused-appellants to commit the murder of the deceased according to him was the same as narrated by P. W. 1, Munesh Kumar in the F.I.R. as well as in his examination-in-chief. However when P. W. 2, Gopi was contradicted by the defence counsel with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he had neither disclosed the time at which he had gone to his tubewell for having a look at 'munji crop' on the date of occurrence where he had seen the deceased consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants nor he had stated therein that he had accompanied the informant P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar to the house of the accused-appellants where they had confessed having committed the murder of the deceased in his presence, he deposed that he had narrated the aforesaid facts to the investigating officer and in case the aforesaid facts were not recorded by the investigating officer in his statement, he had no explanation for the same. However when the attention of the investigating officer was invited to the aforesaid extract of testimony of P. W. 2, Gopi during his cross-examination, he deposed that P. W. 2 Gopi had neither told him that he had seen the deceased with all the three accused-appellants drinking liquor at 7:30 P. M. nor he had told him that he had accompanied Munesh Kumar P. W. 1 to the house of the accused-appellants where they had confessed having committed the murder of the deceased Bhoora. 25. Thus from the above, it follows that P. W. 2 Gopi had for the first time disclosed the time at which he had seen the deceased consuming liquor with the accused-appellants at the deceased's tubewell at 7:30 P.M. and that he had gone to the house of the accused-appellants along with P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar and the accused-appellants had confessed before him as well as P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar that they had committed the murder of the deceased Bhoora. By deposing the aforesaid facts for the first time, in our opinion P. W. 2, Gopi has made improvements in his testimony but the same in our opinion do not adversely affect the prosecution case in any manner, because his evidence on the point of his having seen the deceased consuming liquor with the accused-appellants in the evening at his tubewell has remained intact. Even if his evidence on the point of accused-appellants having confessed before him, having committed the murder of the deceased is excluded from consideration, the evidence of P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar and P. W. 3 Dinesh on the aforesaid aspect of the matter remains intact. 26. Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla has castigated the prosecution claim that the crime weapon was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statements made by accused-appellants Neeraj (A2) and Dheeraj (A3) after their arrest and submitted that the alleged recovery of the crime weapon by them has been fabricated by the investigating officer. In this regard, he invited our attention to the recovery memo of the crime weapon Ext. Ka14 and submitted that from the language of the Ext. Ka14 it transpires that no separate disclosure statements of accused-appellants (A2) Neeraj and (A3) Dheeraj were recorded after they were allegedly arrested at about 18:15 hours on 22.06.2009. The recovery memo further indicates that both the accused-appellants (A2) Neeraj and (A3) Dheeraj had jointly recovered the crime weapon which they admitted having concealed under the pile of banana leaves. He further submitted that under the circumstances the recovery of the crime weapon cannot be attributed to any of the accused and the same is liable to be ignored being manufactured and fabricated by the investigating officer. 27. Reading of the Ext. Ka14 further creates a very strong doubt that confession was made by accused-appellants (A2) Neeraj and (A3) Dheeraj after the recovery of the crime weapon and not pursuant to their disclosure statements and hence the same is not covered under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 28. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 28. We do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The law does not mandate that where there are more than one accused, separate confession of each of the accused should be recorded even in a situation where they jointly confess of having committed a crime, express their desire to get the crime weapon recovered and where a recovery of the crime weapon is jointly made pursuant to joint confessional statements made by two or more accused before the police after their arrest, none of the accused can be assigned the recovery. In fact under such circumstances the recovery shall be attributable to each of the such accused. 29. It further follows from the reading of the recitals contained in the Ext. ka14 and the evidence of P. W. 6 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi that the crime weapon was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused-appellants (A2) Neeraj and (A3) Dheeraj. Merely because accused-appellants (A2) Neeraj and (A3) Dheeraj after the recovery of the crime weapon by them had again stated that it was the same weapon with which they had committed the murder of Bhoora, as recorded in Ext. Ka14, the same would not take out the recovery from the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 30. The authenticity of the recovery of crime weapon by the accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3, Neeraj and Dheeraj pursuant to their disclosure statements recorded by the police after their arrest, has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants also on the ground that the site plan of the place of recovery of crime weapon was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 9.8.2009 Ext. ka13, although the recovery of crime weapon is said to have been made on 7.8.2009. In our opinion, the prosecution claim that the crime weapon was recovered by the accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3, Neeraj and Dheeraj pursuant to their disclosure statements made by them before the police after their arrest, cannot be disbelieved on the ground of there being delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in preparing the site plan of the place of recovery of crime weapon. At the most, it can be described as an instance of negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer which does not adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 31. At the most, it can be described as an instance of negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer which does not adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 31. He further submitted that the absence of any soil particles on the dead body of the deceased belies the prosecution claim that the dead body of the deceased was found buried under a heap of mud in the field of Pyare Lal as is proved from the medical evidence on record. 32. It is true that neither the postmortem report of the deceased Ext. Ka2 nor the testimony of P. W. 4 Dr. Mukesh Kumar who had conducted the postmortem on the cadaver of the deceased Bhoora indicates the presence of any soil particles on the dead body of the deceased but the aforesaid fact, in itself, in our opinion, is not sufficient to doubt the place from where the dead body of the deceased Bhoora recovered as per the prosecution's case. Considering the clinching oral evidence on record for proving the aforesaid fact. P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar, P. W. 2 Gopi and P. W. 3 Dinesh have in their evidence recorded before the trial court have stated in unison that the dead body of the deceased was found buried under a heap of mud in the field of Pyare Lal. The defence counsel failed to cross-examine any of the aforesaid witnesses of fact on the aforesaid point or to challenge the place of recovery of the dead body. Hence we do not find any reason to doubt the prosecution claim that the dead body of the deceased was found buried under a heap of mud in the field of Pyare Lal. 33. Dr. Mukesh Kumar who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased-Bhoora @ Vipnesh on 18.06.2009 and prepared his postmortem report was examined as P. W. 4. He in his evidence tendered before the trial court, deposed that the deceased was aged about 24 years having average height and body, rigor mortis was present partly. He had noted following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased-Bhoora @ Vipnesh : 1. Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on the lower rear part of head. 2. Incised wound 19 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the neck. Soft tissues of the neck were incised. He had noted following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased-Bhoora @ Vipnesh : 1. Contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on the lower rear part of head. 2. Incised wound 19 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the neck. Soft tissues of the neck were incised. Wound was deep upto fourth vertebra of the lumber . 3. Incised wound 18cm x 1cm x bone deep, oblique, from left eye to right side of face ,3 cm below right eye. Nose bone was incised. 4. Several incised wounds on an area of 14 cm x 8 cm. These wounds are on the lower part of the neck. Out of these incised wounds, one was 7cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep and the smallest wound was 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep. 5. Incised wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep on the left shoulder. 6. Several incised wounds on an area of 14 cm x 12 cm on left arm. 7. Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the left hand palm which was from the joint of little finger and next finger to the wrist and bone deep. Fourth bone of the palm was incised. 8. Abrasion 42 cm x 22 cm from chest to back of the abdomen. 9. Incised wound 3cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the front part of the right knee. 10. Incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x muscle deep above right thigh. This wound was 7 cm below the right knee joint. 11. Two incised wounds on an area of 7cm x 4 cm on the inner part of left leg. Distance was 2cm between the two wounds. First wound was 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep and other one 3cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, 4 cm above the left ankle. 34. Upon internal examination of the dead body of the deceased-Bhoora, P. W. 4 Dr. Mukesh Kumar had found that his vocal cord was cut and the injuries found on the dead body of Bhoora were caused by sharp edged weapon and on account of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries, deceased had died. 34. Upon internal examination of the dead body of the deceased-Bhoora, P. W. 4 Dr. Mukesh Kumar had found that his vocal cord was cut and the injuries found on the dead body of Bhoora were caused by sharp edged weapon and on account of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries, deceased had died. According to him, it was possible that the deceased had died on 16.06.2009 between 8 P.M. to 11 P.M. In his opinion out of 11 ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased-Bhoora, nine were caused by sharp edged weapon while the remaining two (A.M. No. 1 and A.M. No. 8) which were in the nature of contusions and abrasions could be caused if the deceased was dragged by his legs along the ground by someone. It is pertinent to note that the correctness of the estimated time of death of the deceased Bhoora opined by P. W. 4, Dr. Mukesh Kumar in his evidence was not challenged by the defence during his cross-examination. No suggestion was given by the defence counsel to him that the ante mortem incised wounds found on the dead body of Bhoora could not have been caused by 'daanv' which is a sharp edged weapon. 35. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR in this case is ante-timed. Moreover, the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has not only deprived the FIR of the benefit of spontaneity but is also suggestive of the facts that the same has been prepared after due deliberations and consultations subsequent to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased Bhoora. Constable Shiv Raj Singh who was posted as Head Moharrir at P. S. Jahangirabad on 7.6.2009 was examined as P. W. 5. He proved the chek FIR Ext. Ka3 and the G.D. entry Ext. Ka4. He in his cross-examination denied the suggestions given to him by the defence counsel inter-alia that upon receiving information about the incident, the G.D. was closed and the FIR of the incident was prepared on the advice of the police and the report registered is ante-timed. We also do not find that there has been any inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR. We also do not find that there has been any inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR. Neither P. W. 1, Munesh Kumar nor P. W. 2, Gopi or P. W. 3, Dinesh have in their evidence disclosed the time at which the accused-appellants had confessed before them that they had committed the murder of Bhoora. It has come in the evidence of P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar, P. W. 2 Gopi and P. W. 3 Dinesh that after the accused-appellants had disclosed to them that they had committed the murder of Bhoora and concealed his dead body, they had launched a search for him and after his dead body was found buried under a heap of mud in the field of Pyare Lal, the matter was reported to the police. Thus in the absence of any evidence with regard to the time at which the accused-appellants had informed the P. W. 1 informant Munesh Kumar and P. W. 3 Dinesh about their having committed the murder of Bhoora and the time at which the dead body of the deceased Bhoora was recovered, we cannot hold that there was any inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR. Moreover, there has not been any cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses of fact by the defence counsel on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 36. Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi who had investigated the matter was examined as P. W. 6. He in his examination-in-chief narrated the various steps taken by him during the course of the investigation and proved the site plan of the incident Ext. Ka25, recovery memo of bloodstained sharp edged weapon from the place of occurrence on 7.6.2009 Ext. Ka6, recovery memo of plain and bloodstained earth from the place of incident Ext. Ka7, inquest report Ext. Ka8 and other related papers namely challan lash, photo lash, letter addressed to R.I. and letter addressed to C.M.O. Ext. Ka9 to Ext. Ka11 and recovery memo of the deceased's towel Ext. Ka13. He further deposed that Dheeraj (A2) and Neeraj (A3) were arrested on 22.6.2009 at about 18:15 hours from Aurangabad road at Puraina. They in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. confessed having committed the murder of the deceased and hid the crime weapon. Ka9 to Ext. Ka11 and recovery memo of the deceased's towel Ext. Ka13. He further deposed that Dheeraj (A2) and Neeraj (A3) were arrested on 22.6.2009 at about 18:15 hours from Aurangabad road at Puraina. They in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. confessed having committed the murder of the deceased and hid the crime weapon. They expressed their willingness to get the crime weapon recovered on which P. W. 6, Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi along with the members of his force, (A2) Neeraj and (A3) Dheeraj left on a jeep for recovering the crime weapon. When they reached village Bansuri near the tubewell of Virendra and bonga moosa, the accused-appellant signalled him to stop the jeep, and then both the accused-appellants got down from the jeep and walked for about 200 paces towards the north followed by the police personnel and when they reached the grove of Jaswant, they stopped there and took out an 'iron daanv' which was hidden under banana tree at about 7:00 P.M. and handed over the same to P. W. 6 and told him that they had committed the murder of Bhoora in their village in the night of 16/17.06.2009 with the same 'daanv', handle whereof had fallen somewhere in the darkness while they were running away after committing the murder of Bhoora and concealing his dead body in the field of Pyarelal. The iron daanv, plain and bloodstained earth which were produced before the court in two containers, were proved and marked as material Ext. Ka1 to Ext. Ka5. Although the defence counsel had cross-examined P. W. 6 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi as I.O. Of the case extensively but he could not elicit anything out of him which may pursuade us to doubt the recovery of the crime weapon by the accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3, Neeraj and Dheeraj pursuant to the disclosures made by them before the police after their arrest. Another sealed bundle was opened before the court from which one sky blue and red colour towel with bloodstains was taken out. P. W. 6 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi proved the same as the same towel which was found lying near the dead body of Bhoora. The said towel was marked as material Ext. Ka6. The daanv which was allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statements made by them was produced before the court and marked as material Ext. Ka7. P. W. 6 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Tyagi proved the same as the same towel which was found lying near the dead body of Bhoora. The said towel was marked as material Ext. Ka6. The daanv which was allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statements made by them was produced before the court and marked as material Ext. Ka7. 37. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that at the time when P. W. 2 Gopi had gone to his field, it had become quite dark and there being no proof of existence of any source of light at the place where he had allegedly seen the deceased consuming liquor with the appellants and hence no reliance can be placed on his testimony on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 38. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellants also in our opinion is without any merit. It is true that that there is no evidence on record indicating that the place where the accused was seen consuming liquor with the accused-appellants was illuminated either by the light of an electric bulb or from any other source but from the perusal of the site plan of the place from where the dead body of the deceased Bhoora was recovered and the place where the deceased Bhoora was consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants in the evening of 16.06.2009 and the course followed by P. W. 2 Gopi while going to and returning from his field indicates that P. W. 2 Gopi had passed from a very close proximity of the place where the deceased was consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants and since the deceased as well as the accused-appellants were previously known to him and also the fact that in the month of June, sufficient natural light is available upto 8 P.M., we do not find any reason to disbelieve his evidence on the aforesaid aspect of the matter merely because the prosecution had failed to prove existence of any source of light. 39. 39. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that although the prosecution claims that a bloodstained towel belonging to the deceased was recovered from near the place where his dead body was found buried under the heap of mud in the field of Pyare Lal but the same was not dispatched to the mortuary along with the dead body and the other documents and articles as is evident from the postmortem report of the deceased and the evidence of P. W. 4, Dr. Mukesh Kumar is another circumstance, which causes a dent in the veracity of the prosecution case. 40. A perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased Ext. Ka2 shows that 11 enclosures which accompanied the dead body of Bhoora when the same was received by P. W. 4 at the mortuary did not include any bloodstained towel. P. W. 4 in his cross-examination on page 13 of the paper book has deposed that he had handed over the postmortem report, clothes and 11 documents in a sealed bundle along with the dead body of the Bhoora to the police constable after conducting the postmortem. 41. Thus under the circumstances, the prosecution claim that a bloodstained towel was also collected from the place where the dead body of Bhoora was recovered may be false but the same does not, in any manner, affect the core of the prosecution story so as to render the same totally unreliable. At the most, it can be described as an irregularity committed by the investigating officer during investigation. 42. At the most, it can be described as an irregularity committed by the investigating officer during investigation. 42. Thus after a meticulous marshalling of the facts of the case and a threadbare scrutiny and a careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving by cogent evidence that informant P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar had left deceased Bhoora in his rice field on 16.06.2009 at about 6 P.M. in the company of Neeraj A2 (since deceased) and Dheeraj A3 and thereafter the deceased was seen consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants at his tubewell by P. W. 2 Gopi and all the three accused-appellants on being enquired by the informant P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar about the whereabouts of deceased Bhoora on the next day had confessed before P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar and P. W. 3 Dinesh that they had committed the murder of Bhoora. The dead body of Bhoora was found buried under a pile of mud in the field of Pyare Lal by P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar and other witnesses. During the course of investigation the police had recovered a handle of 'daanv' from a spot near the place from where the dead body of the deceased Bhoora was recovered. The prosecution has further succeeded in proving that the iron 'daanv' which was used by the appellants in committing the murder of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of appellant no. 2, Neeraj (since deceased) and appellant no. 3, Dheeraj pursuant to the disclosure statements made by them after their arrest. The forensic report which was not challenged by the defence indicated the presence of human blood on the daanv for which the accused-appellants failed to furnish any explanation. That the death of Bhoora was homicidal, stood proved from the inquest report as well as the medical evidence on record. It was further established from the medical evidence on record that nine, out of the eleven injuries, found on Bhoora's dead body were caused by a sharp edged weapon. No evidence has come forth on record indicating that the deceased was seen alive at any point of time after he was sighted by P. W. 2 Gopi consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants in the evening of 16.06.2009. No evidence has come forth on record indicating that the deceased was seen alive at any point of time after he was sighted by P. W. 2 Gopi consuming liquor with all the three accused-appellants in the evening of 16.06.2009. All the three witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial substantially supported the prosecution case on all material aspects of the matter. There is no doubt that there are some discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of P. W. 1 Munesh Kumar and P. W. 2 Gopi but their evidence on all material points has remained clinching and consistent. The chain of circumstances in this case is complete and the circumstances and the facts established in this case on being considered collectively, lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused-appellants alone are the perpetrators of the crime in question. 43. Thus in view of the above, we do not find that the learned trial judge had committed any illegality or legal infirmity in convicting the appellants and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. 44. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 45. There shall be however, no order as to costs.