JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 8.4.15 passed by the Session Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Case No.7/13, whereby the appellants Sonu Jangid, Ajit Mali, Manisha, Gopal Khatri and Dinesh Kumawat have been convicted and sentenced as under: Sonu Jangid Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. Section 201 alternatively 201/120B IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Manisha Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. Ajit, Gopal and Dinesh Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5000/- each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences awarded to the appellant Sonu are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that Himmat Rai @ Vijay, resident of Jodhpur, a property dealer, entered into marriage with Asha Sindhi; out of the wedlock, two sons and a daughter were born. Over the years, the relations between Himmat Rai and Asha Sindhi turned strained, consequently, Himmat Rai started living at Jaipur and entered into marriage with Manisha Sindhi. Their relation also became strained leading to litigation between them. Sonu Jangid, the appellant herein, was employed with Himmat Rai as driver. 3. On 23.12.10, the complainant Sardara Ram Meghwal, uncle of Himmat Rai @ Vijay submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) before the SHO, Police Station, Mt. Abu, stating that there was no contact with his nephew Himmat Rai for 8-10 days and therefore, his nephew Khamisa Ram contacted Sonu Jangid using mobile phone of his younger brother Prem. Sonu revealed that he was taking Himmat Rai to Ahmedabad for treatment. When Khamisa Ram expressed his desire to talk to Vijay, Sonu informed that Vijay is asleep. Then Prem told him that if his health condition is not good he would come to Ahmedabad. Thereupon, Sonu told that there is no need to come as they will be reaching Jodhpur by morning. This conversation took place in afternoon on 20.12.10. When Khamisa Ram expressed his desire to talk to Vijay, Sonu informed that Vijay is asleep. Then Prem told him that if his health condition is not good he would come to Ahmedabad. Thereupon, Sonu told that there is no need to come as they will be reaching Jodhpur by morning. This conversation took place in afternoon on 20.12.10. When Vijay and Sonu didn’t reach Jodhpur, Khamisa Ram and Prem informed about this to the complainant Sardara Ram, who in his turn on 22.12.10 contacted Manisha on phone then, Manisha informed that Vijay and Sonu had proceeded from Jaipur to Ahmedabad on 15.12.10 and since then she had no contact with them. Vijay’s wife Asha informed Khamisa Ram and Prem that there was a news item in newspaper that is why she has come to Mt. Abu. She returned to Jodhpur and again went to Mount Abu along with Khamisa Ram and Prem. A dead body was recovered near Forest View Point Hill Area, 14 kms. away from Mount Abu, on Abu Road- Mount Abu Road on 21.12.10, which was later identified as that of Himmat Rai @ Vijay. On the autopsy of the dead body of Himmat Rai @ Vijay being conducted, it was revealed that he was murdered. In the report filed as aforesaid, the complainant expressed suspicion on Sonu driver. 4. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P/1), the police registered the FIR No.78 dated 23.12.10 (Ex.P/87) for offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. 5. During the investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., necessary memos were drawn. The accused persons, the appellants herein were arrested. The recoveries were made on the basis of the information furnished by the appellants under Section 27 of Evidence Act. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants Sonu and Manisha for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC read with Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “the SC/ST Act”) and against the appellant Gopal Sindhi, Ajit and Dinesh for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mount Abu. After taking cognizance of the offences, the matter was committed to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act. After taking cognizance of the offences, the matter was committed to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act. Vide order dated 25.5.11 passed by the learned trial Judge, the appellants were discharged of the charge for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and the charges were framed against the appellant Sonu for offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and against the co-accused Manisha, Gopal, Ajit for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 120B IPC and 201 read with Section 120B IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. On account of the appellants being discharged from the charge for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, vide order dated 25.2.13, the matter was transferred by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Sirohi for trial to the Session Judge, Sirohi. 6. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 43 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 43) and produced the documentary evidence as Ex.P/1 to Ex. P/97. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, they denied their involvement in the commission of crime. No oral evidence was led by the appellants in defence, however, the statements of Sardara Ram, Asha Devi, Samli, Hajari Lal, Tejaram, Shripal and Kalyan Singh recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and some other documents produced were exhibited in evidence as Ex.D/1 to D/11 on their behalf. 7. After due consideration of the rival submissions and the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. Hence, these appeals. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the evidence adduced at the trial. 9. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sonu Jangid submitted that learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings being arrived at. The findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to law and facts. There was no eye witness of the incident and the prosecution story rests on circumstantial evidence. The incriminating circumstances set out by the prosecution have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to law and facts. There was no eye witness of the incident and the prosecution story rests on circumstantial evidence. The incriminating circumstances set out by the prosecution have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The inference of the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence can be justified only when circumstances are such as to exclude every hypothesis but one proposed to be proved, whereas in the instant case on the basis of the evidence, which has come on record, the chain of circumstances is not established and therefore, no inference of guilt of the appellant can be drawn. Learned counsel contended that prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was last seen with the appellant Sonu Jangid. As per the prosecution, the appellant went to Ahmedabad from Jaipur with the deceased in Skoda car bearing registration No. RJ-14-CD-0819, however, the prosecution has failed to prove that right from Jaipur to Mount Abu, the appellant was with the deceased. No documentary evidence i.e. Toll receipts etc. were produced by the prosecution to establish the transit of the appellant Sonu in the Skoda car from Jaipur to Mount Abu. No witness was produced who could identify the appellant as the person travelling with the deceased. The combined passenger tax recovery challan (Ex.P/8) produced showing the various numbers of the vehicles entering the municipal limit of Mount Abu including the vehicle ‘RJ-14-CA-0819’ in no manner could be construed an evidence of the fact that the appellant entered the municipal limit of Mount Abu on 19.12.10. That apart, P.W.15-Dwarka Das and P.W.16-Shanker Lal, the employees of Municipal Board, Mount Abu have categorically deposed that they do not know as to who were the persons travelling in the vehicle ‘RJ-14-819’ which crossed the check post at Mount Abu around 7-7.15 A.M. and thus, the challan receipt (Ex.P/8) in no manner establishes the entry of the appellant accompanied by the deceased within the municipal area of Mount Abu. Learned counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased and the appellant stayed at Ashoka Hotel, Mount Abu on 19.12.10. The entry no. Learned counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased and the appellant stayed at Ashoka Hotel, Mount Abu on 19.12.10. The entry no. 114 in the Guest Entry Register of Ashoka Hotel (Ex.P/68A) in no manner establishes that the appellant accompanied with deceased Himmat Rai stayed at the said hotel on 19.12.10 and checked out on 20.12.10 at 8 A.M. The depositions of P.W.12-Prahlad Kumar, P.W.20-Dinesh Kumar and P.W.34-Hasim, the owner and employees of Ashoka Hotel also do not indicate that the appellant accompanied by the deceased Himmat Rai stayed in Ashoka Hotel on 19.12.10. In this regard, yet another material witness Laxman Garasia was not produced for examination by the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of the towel at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P/18 is absolutely fake. It is not established on the basis of any evidence on record that the said towel was used in commission of the crime as alleged. Admittedly, no blood stains were found on the towel recovered. Moreover, P.W.11-Bharat Lal, Constable and P.W.27-Mukhtiyar Khan have even failed to identify the towel recovered. P.W.27-Mukhtiyar Khan, the witness of recovery, has failed to identify the person at whose instance the recovery was effected. Thus, the recovery of the towel cannot be construed to be an incriminating circumstance against the appellant Sonu. Learned counsel urged that the prosecution has failed to establish that the shoes, blanket and mobile recovered belong to the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove that the SIM recovered from mobile was in the name of Sonu. The recovery of watch and wallet at the instance of appellant from the house which is not in his exclusive possession is also fake. No test identification parade was conducted and no evidence was led to prove that the watch and wallet recovered belonged to the deceased. So far as recovery of mobile is concerned, in the information alleged to have been supplied vide Ex.P/92(1), the place where the mobile was kept is not disclosed. P.W.27-Mukhtiyar Khan in his deposition has not spoken a single word regarding recovery of mobile phone vide Ex.P/93. No evidence was produced to prove that the mobile phone recovered as aforesaid belonged to the deceased. Admittedly, the recovery of mobile was effected from open place which stands fortified from deposition of P.W.42-Ashok Kumar Singh. P.W.27-Mukhtiyar Khan in his deposition has not spoken a single word regarding recovery of mobile phone vide Ex.P/93. No evidence was produced to prove that the mobile phone recovered as aforesaid belonged to the deceased. Admittedly, the recovery of mobile was effected from open place which stands fortified from deposition of P.W.42-Ashok Kumar Singh. The appellant Sonu was arrested on 26.12.10 whereas the recovery of the mobile phone is alleged to have been made at his instance on 7.1.11 from a place which was already known to the police and thus, the recovery made even otherwise cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has endeavoured to prove that the dead body was taken to Mount Abu in the vehicle No.RJ-14-CD-0819 and after disposing of the same, the said vehicle was taken to Tirupati Auto Garage, Abu Road for repair. However, P.W.25-Ishaq Khan, who works as mechanic at the said garage, has categorically deposed that the name and address was written on the slip by the person who brought the vehicle, which was handed over to the police. He categorically deposed that he cannot identify the person who brought the vehicle for repair and do not remember the numbers of both the vehicles. Learned counsel would submit that the verification of the place of occurrence at the instance of the appellant is of no evidentiary value inasmuch as, the place was already known to the police. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Vijender vs. State of Delhi”, 1997 SCC (Cri.) 857. Learned counsel submitted that Tejaram was the driver employed by the deceased which stands proved by deposition of P.W.24-Shripal and P.W.22-Tejaram and thus, the appellant cannot be convicted presuming him to be the driver of the vehicle. Further, there is no evidence brought on record to establish that the appellant and other co-accused shifted the body of the deceased from one vehicle to another. Learned counsel submitted that the call details furnished even does not disclose the names of the subscribers of the related mobile numbers. That apart, in absence of production of certificate as mandated under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, such photo stat copies of electronic records are not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the call details furnished even does not disclose the names of the subscribers of the related mobile numbers. That apart, in absence of production of certificate as mandated under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, such photo stat copies of electronic records are not admissible in evidence. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of “Anvar P.V. vs. P.K.Basheer & Ors.”, (2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 24 & “Harpal Singh alias Chhota vs. State of Punjab”, AIR 2016 SC 5389 and a Bench decision of this court in the matter of “Toofanmal Jat & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan Thro’ P.P.’, 2018 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 577. Learned counsel would submit that without pointing out the specific conversations connecting the persons alleged to be involved in commission of the crime, the call details could in no manner be construed as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant and the co-convicts. Learned counsel submitted that the story projected by the prosecution that the appellant was administering sleeping pills to the deceased is absolutely a cooked up story. The post mortem report also does not reflect the presence of any sleeping pills being consumed by the deceased. No prescription of medicines was exhibited in evidence. That apart, P.W.17-Himanshu, the owner of the Medical Store, the witness examined by the prosecution to prove the incriminating circumstance, has turned hostile and declined to have sold the sleeping pills to the appellant. He did not identify the appellant either. The recovery of the sleeping pills vide Ex.P/48 also does not connect the appellant with commission of the crime. P.W.21-Hajari Lal, the witness of recovery of sleeping pills at the instance of appellant, who being the husband of niece of the deceased was interested witness, has also categorically deposed that when he reached, the flat was open and the police was already there. He even failed to name the pills recovered. Similarly, P.W.41-Brij Lal has also deposed that when he reached the place of recovery, the house was open and the police personnel were sitting in the hall and after conclusion of the proceedings, he was made to sign 4-5 papers and thus, the recovery of the pills is not reliable. He even failed to name the pills recovered. Similarly, P.W.41-Brij Lal has also deposed that when he reached the place of recovery, the house was open and the police personnel were sitting in the hall and after conclusion of the proceedings, he was made to sign 4-5 papers and thus, the recovery of the pills is not reliable. That apart, learned counsel submitted that the recovery of the pills in no manner could be construed to be an incriminating circumstance against the appellant inasmuch as, the factum of appellant giving the sleeping pills to the deceased so as to weaken his health is not established on the basis of any cogent evidence on record. Learned counsel urged that the information supplied by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which contains the details regarding the manner in which the offence is committed has also been considered by the court as incriminating evidence against the appellant whereas the relevance thereof is limited distinctly to the fact discovered pursuant to the information supplied. Learned counsel urged that it is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible whereas, in the instant case, the incriminating circumstances have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Navaneethakrishnan vs. The State by Inspector of Police”, 2018(2) Current Judgments (Cri.) (SC) 395. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged extra judicial confession by the appellant Sonu before P.W.22-Tejaram is absolutely concocted and false. Further, admittedly, as per the deposition of P.W.22-Tejaram, at the time when the confession is alleged to have been made, the appellant was in police custody and therefore, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made is of no evidentiary value. Learned counsel urged that the investigation conducted by the police was absolutely unfair. The defence version has not been taken into consideration while investigating the matter. Learned counsel urged that the investigation conducted by the police was absolutely unfair. The defence version has not been taken into consideration while investigating the matter. Drawing the attention of the court to the deposition of P.W.9-Asha, learned counsel submitted that there exists material contradiction regarding the said witness reaching Mount Abu, returning back to Jodhpur and again going back to Mount Abu as also regarding the identification of the dead body of the deceased by her. That apart, there exist serious contradictions regarding the execution of the Will by the deceased, the factum of her knowledge about the execution thereof and handing over of the Will by P.W.22-Tejaram to her. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant Sonu and Manisha were not going to be benefited by the death of Himmat Rai rather, P.W.9-Asha and her children were the beneficiaries and thus, the motive behind the commission of crime could be attributed only to P.W.9-Asha and P.W.22-Tejaram, however, this aspect of the matter was not at all investigated by the police and for this reason also, the benefit of doubt deserves to be extended to the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that a conjoint reading of deposition of P.W.9-Asha, P.W.22-Tejaram, P.W.39-Vikram Choudhary and P.W.40-Bunty @ Lokesh establishes suspicious conduct of P.W.9-Asha but the same has altogether been ignored by the learned trial Judge. 10. Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Manisha contended that the charge against the appellant is regarding hatching the conspiracy to kill the deceased Himmat Rai in pursuance whereof Sonu Jangid caused his murder. Learned counsel contended that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that there was an agreement between the appellant Manisha and Sonu Jangid to kill the deceased. There is no direct evidence and the prosecution has not been able to establish the circumstances as alleged pointing out the existence of conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that none of the incriminating circumstances set out by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant i.e. the call details, recovery of sleeping pills, recovery of laptop, site verification, recovery of mobile, extra judicial confession and the motive is established on the basis of any cogent evidence on record and further the chain of the circumstances set out by the prosecution is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of crime. Adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for the appellant Sonu Jangid, learned counsel submitted that in absence of production of certificate as mandated under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, the photo stat copies of the call details (Ex.P/35 to P/40) placed on record are not admissible in evidence. As per the prosecution, the call details were obtained by Constable Subhash, however, he has not been examined as witness. The call details furnished even does not disclose the names of the subscribers of the related mobile numbers and thus, in no manner it could be inferred that the appellant Manisha had conversation with the co-accused Sonu Jangid. Learned counsel submitted that the call details furnished do not reflect that a single call was made by the subscriber of mobile No.98288 98813 alleged to be the SIM number of the appellant Manisha and thus, the call details in no manner connect the appellant with the commission of crime. Learned counsel submitted that the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before P.W.26-Kalyan Singh is absolutely concocted and false. There was absolutely no reason as to why the appellant Manisha would confide in the said witness. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant while she was in police custody, has no evidentiary value whatsoever. Drawing the attention of the court to the deposition of P.W.26-Kalyan Singh, learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the appellant had no intimate talk with P.W.26 before the alleged conversation at Police Station, Bilara. The factum of appellant Manisha contacting P.W.26-Kalyan Singh on mobile phone is also not proved by any evidence on record and thus, the prosecution story that on being called by the appellant Manisha, P.W.26-Kalyan Singh reached the Police Station, Bilara is also apparently false. Learned counsel submitted that the extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made by the appellant on 25.12.10 at Police Station, Bilara before P.W.26-Kalyan Singh whereas, in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/11), he has not disclosed any such confession alleged to have been made by the appellant, which also indicates that the evidence of extra judicial confession set out against the appellant is created evidence. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the extra judicial confession is considered as a weak piece of evidence and such evidence is always required to be examined by the court with great care and caution. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of “State of U.P. vs. M.K.Anthony”, 1985 SCC (Cri.) 105, “State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram”, (2006) 12 SCC 254 and “Sahadevan & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu”, 2012 AIR SCW 3206. Regarding the recovery of sleeping pills, learned counsel while adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant Sonu Jangid, further submitted that as per deposition of P.W.22- Tejaram the flat of the deceased was locked and the key was not traceable therefore, the lock was broke open and yet another lock was put, the key whereof was with P.W.9-Asha and P.W.22- Tejaram. P.W.22-Tejaram has categorically deposed that police came to the flat for making the search after 4 days from the date the lock was broken by them and at the time when the police came, the key of the flat was with Asha and thus, apparently recovery was made from the flat in possession of Asha and Tejaram. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge that the deceased for his care was solely dependent upon the appellant Manisha and Sonu Jangid is totally based on surmises and conjectures. It has come on record that the appellant Manisha was not staying with deceased Himmat Rai and was living separately and thus, without there being any evidence suggesting otherwise, the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge as aforesaid, is absolutely capricious and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that recovery of the laptop at the instance of the appellant is also of no evidentiary value. No evidence was brought on record for establishing that the laptop recovered belonged to the deceased. That apart, the material contained therein was not even investigated and thus, there is nothing on record suggesting that how the said laptop can at all be considered as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 11. No evidence was brought on record for establishing that the laptop recovered belonged to the deceased. That apart, the material contained therein was not even investigated and thus, there is nothing on record suggesting that how the said laptop can at all be considered as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 11. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Ajit contended that the appellant was implicated in the case on the basis of use of the vehicles in commission of the crime, however, none of the vehicles alleged to have been used in commission of crime belongs to the appellant. Learned counsel submit that the Skoda car No.RJ-14- CD-0819 was owned by the deceased himself and Car No. RJ-19- T-763 and Indica Car No.RJ-19-TA-0520 belonged to Dilavar Singh and Bhanwar Singh respectively, who have got the vehicle released on ‘supurdaginama’, however, they were not examined before the court. Learned counsel would submit that there is no evidence on record establishing that the appellant Ajit accompanied by Gopal escorted appellant Sonu Jangid from Salasar Road upto Bar in Car No.RJ-19-TA-0520 and then went back to Jodhpur. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, the appellant had given information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/83 regarding his Indica car and the key of the Skoda car and pursuant thereto by two separate memos of recovery Ex.P/54 & P/58, Indica car No.RJ-19-TA-0520 and key of Skoda car kept therein respectively were recovered with the gap of 15 minutes. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery effected is absolutely fake. There is no evidence on record suggesting that the key of the Skoda car was ever handed over by the appellant Dinesh to the appellant Ajit. Regarding the call details, learned counsel adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants Sonu Jangid and Manisha. Learned counsel would submit that in absence of any other incriminating circumstances proved merely on the basis of alleged recovery which is also not free from doubt, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 201/120B IPC. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Gopal submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the appellant Ajit had handed over his vehicle to the appellant Gopal and Gopal escorted Sonu from Bar to Mount Abu. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Gopal submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the appellant Ajit had handed over his vehicle to the appellant Gopal and Gopal escorted Sonu from Bar to Mount Abu. Learned counsel urged that the receipt (Ex.P/8) issued at the Check Post also does not suggest that one of the two persons who reached Mount Abu in the car RJ-14-CD-0819 was the appellant Gopal. Similarly, there is no evidence that the appellant stayed with Sonu in the Hotel Ashoka at Mount Abu. On the basis of the alleged information supplied by Sonu, learned trial Court has seriously erred in presuming that the person who stayed with Sonu at Hotel Ashoka was the appellant Gopal. Learned counsel would submit that the alleged verification of the site at the instance of the appellant has absolutely no evidentiary value inasmuch as the site had already been verified at the instance of the accused Sonu and thus, the verification of the site which was already known to the police also cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstance against the appellant Gopal. Learned counsel submitted that mobile alleged to have been used by the appellant has not been recovered, the SIM was also not recovered and it is not the prosecution case that the appellant was the subscriber of the SIM alleged to have been used by him. Learned counsel would submit that the call details relied upon by the prosecution in absence of the compliance of provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this court in Toofanmal Jat’s case (supra). Learned counsel would submit that in absence of any cogent evidence worth the name, the conviction of appellant Gopal for offences under Sections 201/120B IPC by the learned trial Court on the basis of assumptions and presumptions deserves to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Dinesh Kumawat contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish any incriminating circumstances against the appellant indicating his involvement in the commission of crime. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Dinesh Kumawat contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish any incriminating circumstances against the appellant indicating his involvement in the commission of crime. Learned counsel submitted that the verification of the site at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P/32, P/33 & P/34 has no evidentiary value whatsoever inasmuch as, the sites, verification whereof was sought to be made at the instance of the appellant, were already known to the police. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the deposition of P.W.11-Bharat Lal and P.W.43- Pannalal. Learned counsel submitted that the place where appellant Dinesh is alleged to have left car for repairing it had already been verified by the police at the instance of accused Sonu and Gopal pursuant to the information furnished, vide Ex.P/27 and Ex.P/29 respectively on 28.12.10 and thus, the verification of the place already known to the police on the basis of the information furnished by the appellant Dinesh has no evidentiary value in respect of the fact already discovered. Regarding the call details, learned counsel has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant Sonu Jangid. Learned counsel submitted that the there is no evidence whatsoever indicating that the appellant Dinesh had conspired with the accused Sonu Jangid and helped him in disposing of the body of the deceased Himmat Rai and thus, in absence of any evidence direct or circumstantial connecting the appellant with the commission of the crime, the findings arrived at by the trial Court on the basis of alleged information supplied by the co-accused Sonu Jangid are ex facie capricious and perverse. 14. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge after due appreciation of evidence on record in its entirety cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that there was no eye witness of the incident but the incriminating circumstances set out by the prosecution stand established beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances proved only indicates towards the guilt of the appellants. It is submitted that on the basis of evidence on record, it stands proved that deceased Himmat Rai was solely dependent upon appellant Sonu Jangid and Manisha for his care. It is submitted that on the basis of evidence on record, it stands proved that deceased Himmat Rai was solely dependent upon appellant Sonu Jangid and Manisha for his care. While drawing our attention to the findings of the learned trial Judge, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Sonu Jangid and Manisha hatched the conspiracy to cause death of Himmat Rai and in furtherance thereof in the first instance they administered tranquilizer to weaken his immune system and later Sonu Jangid caused his death by strangulation. It is submitted that the fact that the deceased was being administered tranquilizer stands established by recovery of the sleeping pills at the instance of accused Sonu Jangid. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the confession of the accused Sonu Jangid and Manisha before P.W. 22-Tejaram and P.W.26-Kalyan Singh respectively is strong incriminating circumstance indicating towards their guilt. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the recovery of various articles effected, duly proved, further establishes the guilt of the accused Sonu Jangid in causing death of Himmat Rai. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the guilt of accused Ajit, Gopal and Dinesh for commission of the offence under Section 201/120B IPC stands established on the basis of the site verification and recoveries made at their instance. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the evidence on record thoroughly. 16. After inquest proceedings, autopsy of the body of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Board consisting of Dr. Tanveer Hussain, Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Dr. Jaswant Singh, at Community Health Centre, Mount Abu. As per the post mortem report (Ex. P/67), following ligature mark and injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- Ligature mark: Abrasion 10 cm x 2 cm extending from Rt angle of mandible (2 cm below) to neck 2 cm below adam’ apple from face extending upto left angle of Lt. mandible (below 2 cm) size 8 cm x 2 cm. Dark blood present in surrounding cricoid and thyroid cartilage surrounding muscles ruptured and haematoma present. Fracture of thyroid and cricoid bone. Injuries: 1. Abrasion of 3 x 1 cm on both right Rt and Lt shoulder\on back. 2. Abrasion 2 in number on both Rt and Lt side of back below 3 scapula of size 2 x 1 cm. 3. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on back of Rt. hand. 4. Fracture of thyroid and cricoid bone. Injuries: 1. Abrasion of 3 x 1 cm on both right Rt and Lt shoulder\on back. 2. Abrasion 2 in number on both Rt and Lt side of back below 3 scapula of size 2 x 1 cm. 3. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on back of Rt. hand. 4. Abrasion multiple, on fingers middle and index size\ upto 1 ½ cm. Injuries under heading (B), 1 to 4 are ante mortem in nature.(c) operated scare mark on 14 cm x 2 cm extending from Lt iliac chest upto posterior aspect of Lt iliac bone. Operated mark 12 cm x 2 cm extending 4 cm below Lt elbow upto 2 cm below Lt wrist joint on lateral side of Lt forearm. The cause of death was opined to be ‘asphyxia’ due to strangulation of the trachea and fracture of cricoid and thyroid bone which was found to be self sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. P.W.33-Dr. Jaswant Singh in his deposition has confirmed the nature of injuries found on the person of the deceased as also the cause of death. Thus, looking to the nature of injuries and cause of death, the death of Himmat Rai was concededly homicidal in nature. 17. As per the prosecution story, the deceased Himmat Rai just before his death was residing in his flat situated at Rani Sati Nagar, Jaipur with his second wife Manisha and the driver Sonu and was solely dependent upon them for his care. Manisha and Sonu Jangid entered into criminal conspiracy to cause death of Himmat Rai and in pursuance thereof, in the first instance they administered sleeping pills with an intention to weaken his immune system and later in furtherance of the common intention, Sonu Jangid took away deceased Himmat Rai in his Skoda car to Mount Abu via Salasar and caused his death by strangulation. The accused Ajit and Gopal escorted the vehicle i.e. Skoda car owned by the deceased Himmat Rai driven by Sonu Jangid during the transit from Jaipur to Mount Abu. That apart, Gopal and Dinesh helped Sonu Jangid in removal of the corpse from the car and throwing the same in a ditch at Mount Abu. 18. The accused Ajit and Gopal escorted the vehicle i.e. Skoda car owned by the deceased Himmat Rai driven by Sonu Jangid during the transit from Jaipur to Mount Abu. That apart, Gopal and Dinesh helped Sonu Jangid in removal of the corpse from the car and throwing the same in a ditch at Mount Abu. 18. The facts not in dispute are : In the first instance deceased Himmat Rai who was engaged in business of property dealing at Jodhpur, entered into marriage with P.W.9-Asha and used to reside in a house situated at Mansarovar Nagar, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur. Out of the wedlock, two sons namely Vishal and Narendra and a daughter Laxmi @ Puja were born. Later, the relations between deceased Himmat Rai and Asha became strained which culminated in dissolution of marriage between them by way of divorce in the year 2009. Deceased Himmat Rai entered into second marriage with Manisha and started living with her in a flat situated at Rani Sati Nagar, Jaipur. After quite some time the relations between deceased Himmat Rai and Manisha also became strained and Manisha lodged FIR against Himmat Rai at the concerned police station. Accused Sonu Jangid was employed by deceased Himmat Rai as driver. The vehicle i.e. Skoda car bearing registration No. RJ-14-CD-0819 alleged to have been recovered by the police and used by the accused Sonu Jangid in commission of the crime, was owned by deceased Himmat Rai. 19. As per P.W.9-Asha, the relations between deceased Himmat Rai and accused Manisha improved. Manisha withdrew the case lodged against Himmat Rai and started living with him. The accused Sonu Jangid, who was employed by deceased Himmat Rai for cooking food and driving the car, was staying with him. That apart, Tejaram Bishnoi, who was also helping Himmat Rai in his business also used to stay with him. As per the said witness notwithstanding the dissolution of marriage by way of divorce, the deceased Himmat Rai used to take care of her and the children. That apart, he used to come to her place and they were maintaining physical relations. The accused Sonu Jangid was once removed from service by deceased Himmat Rai, however, on the pressure being exerted by Manisha, he was re-employed in the month of May, 2010. 20. That apart, he used to come to her place and they were maintaining physical relations. The accused Sonu Jangid was once removed from service by deceased Himmat Rai, however, on the pressure being exerted by Manisha, he was re-employed in the month of May, 2010. 20. P.W.9-Asha has further deposed that on 4.12.10 her children told her that their father has stopped calling them and therefore, they should go to Jaipur and meet him. Then they went to Jaipur to meet Himmat Rai. Asha stayed near the bridge and children along with P.W.22-Tejaram went to meet Himmat Rai. On return, the children reported to Asha that their father has gone weak and she should visit him and then she went to Himmat Rai’s residence, met him and returned back to Jodhpur along with the children. In this regard P.W.22-Tejaram who was accompanying the children did not say that Asha stayed back at the bridge and he accompanied the children to the residence of deceased Himmat Rai rather, he stated that during the visit, Asha looking to the health condition of Himmat Rai tried to convince him to come to Jodhpur whereupon he said that after visiting the doctor at Ahmedabad, he will come to Jodhpur. None of the children of deceased Himmat Rai has been examined as witness by the prosecution. In any case, it is nowhere stated by P.W.9-Asha and P.W.22-Tejaram that at the time when they visited the residence of deceased Himmat Rai on 4.12.10, the accused Manisha and Sonu Jangid were present there. 21. P.W.9-Asha deposed that after coming back to Jodhpur she called her brother-in-law P.W.10-Khamisa Ram (the brother of the deceased Himmat Rai) and while apprising him about the ill health of Himmat Rai, requested him to talk to Himmat Rai but when he made a call, accused Sonu did not allow him to talk with Himmat Rai. Later, her relatives received the call from P.W.19-Smt. Samli, the niece of deceased Himmat Rai, informing that the health condition of her maternal uncle (Himmat Rai) is not good. She deposed that P.W.8-Prem Kumar, younger brother of deceased Himmat Rai, offered to go to Ahmedabad but Sonu declined saying that there is no such need, then said Sonu did not arrange their talk with Himmat Rai. She deposed that P.W.8-Prem Kumar, younger brother of deceased Himmat Rai, offered to go to Ahmedabad but Sonu declined saying that there is no such need, then said Sonu did not arrange their talk with Himmat Rai. She further deposed that on 17.12.10 she called Ajit who is friend of accused Sonu but he said that he had no telephonic conversation with Sonu. Thereafter she went to Jaipur but Himmat Rai was not available at the flat, she met chowkidar Shanker and came back to Jodhpur and again went back to Jaipur. She deposed that at the time of her earlier visit to Jaipur, she had gone to Samli’s house and she along with Samli and her husband went to Manisha’s residence and inquired about Himmat Rai, thereupon she revealed that Himmat Rai has gone with a girl with an intention to marry. When Manisha was requested to accompany to the police station to lodge the report, she declined to accompany on account of her ongoing dispute with Vijay @ Himmat Rai. In her cross examination, she deposed that she went to Jaipur on 3.12.10 and thereafter, on 17th and 18th December, 2010. As per her deposition, she went to Jaipur on 17.12.10, returned back to Jodhpur in the morning of 18.12.10 and again went to Jaipur on 18.12.10 at 12 Noon and returned back on 19.12.10 in the morning. 22. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that as per deposition of P.W.22-Tejaram, on 15.12.10 he along with P.W.9-Asha, Bunty and P.W.39-Vikram Choudhary went to Jaipur at the flat of the deceased but it was found locked and on being inquired from chowkidar and neighbours, it was revealed that he was not seen since morning. Thereafter, they went to Manisha’s place, who revealed that on account of her ill health, she was staying at home, however, she had information that Vijay and Sonu were going to Ahmedabad. 23. P.W.19-Smt. Samli deposed that after operation of the deceased Himmat Rai @ Vijay on 13.12.10 she along with her husband went to his flat to inquire about his health. His uncle Vijay, Manisha and Sonu were available there. The health condition of her uncle was very bad and he was not even in position to speak. 23. P.W.19-Smt. Samli deposed that after operation of the deceased Himmat Rai @ Vijay on 13.12.10 she along with her husband went to his flat to inquire about his health. His uncle Vijay, Manisha and Sonu were available there. The health condition of her uncle was very bad and he was not even in position to speak. The marks of the injuries were visible on his body and on an inquiry being made in this regard Sonu revealed that he had fallen from stairs and suffered the injuries. Accused Manisha who was there in the kitchen, on inquiry being made revealed that deceased Himmat Rai had suffered injuries at the gate. When she expressed her desire to visit on the next day as well, Sonu told not to come as Himmat Rai was to be taken for check up to the place where he had undergone operation. As per P.W.19-Samli, on the next day when she telephoned and desired to talk with Vijay, Sonu told that he is sitting down the stair where somebody has expired. On the day after when she again gave a call, she was apprised by Sonu that Manisha and Vijay are quarreling. Then she apprised her maternal uncle Shripal and Prem about the poor health condition of Vijay. Shripal and Prem gave a call to Sonu who apprised them that Vijay is alright. After 3-4 days since their visit, Sonu switched off the phone and thereupon, she along with P.W.9-Asha, P.W.22-Teja, Bunty and her husband went to Manisha’s place, who on being asked, apprised that after operation Vijay had gone for post operation check up and shall return after 4-5 days. 24. As noticed hereinabove, as per P.W.9-Asha, she had gone to Manisha’s residence along with Samli and her husband but she has nowhere stated that Teja and Bunty were accompanying them. Further, on being asked about Himmat Rai, as per P.W.9-Asha, Manisha told that he has gone with a girl to enter into marriage whereas, as noticed above, as per P.W.19-Samli, Manisha apprised them that Himmat Rai @ Vijay has gone for post operation check up. As per P.W.22-Tejaram, when they visited Manisha’s place, she told that she was at home for 2 days on account of indisposition, however, she had information that Vijay and Sonu had gone to Ahmedabad. As per P.W.22-Tejaram, when they visited Manisha’s place, she told that she was at home for 2 days on account of indisposition, however, she had information that Vijay and Sonu had gone to Ahmedabad. As per P.W.24-Shripal on the information being received from his niece P.W.19-Samli, they contacted Sonu on phone, who apprised them that the health condition of Vijay is alright. Thereafter, on 15.12.10 when again an attempt was made to contract Sonu, his phone was switched off. 25. As per deposition of P.W.8-Prem Kumar, Manisha and Vijay Kumar were residing separately but used to visit each other’s place. He deposed that on 13.12.10 on telephonic message being received from P.W.19-Samli, when he tried to contract Vijay on phone, his phone was with Sonu, then he contacted on Sonu’s phone, who apprised that Vijay is sleeping and thereafter, on being called again, he arranged the talk with Vijay, whose voice was not clear and therefore, he expressed his desire to visit him at Jaipur, then Sonu told that after check up of Vijay at Ahmedabad, he will directly come to Jodhpur. When he again tried to contact Sonu, his phone was switched off. 26. From perusal of the deposition of the witnesses as discussed hereinabove, indicates that after settlement of the dispute Manisha used to visit Himmat Rai’s residence but on the basis of the evidence on record, in no manner, it could be inferred that after settlement of the dispute accused Manisha shifted to Himmat Rai’s residence and started living with him and thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge to the extent that besides Sonu Jangid, the deceased Himmat Rai was solely dependent for his treatment and care on Manisha as well, does not appear to be well founded. 27. The deposition of P.W.19-Samli regarding her noticing the marks of injuries on the person of the deceased Himmat Rai during the visit to his place on 13.12.10 and the discrepancy in the explanation furnished by accused Sonu Jangid and Manisha in this regard, in absence of any cogent evidence on record, in no manner an inference can be drawn that the deceased had suffered the injuries on account of being beaten by the accused Manisha and Sonu Jangid and not due to his felling down. Suffice it to say in absence of factum of Manisha and Sonu Jangid giving beating to the deceased Himmat Rai being proved, on the basis of evidence on record, the alleged verification of the place at their instance vide Ex.P84, where the deceased Himmat Rai was given beating, in no manner could be construed evidence sufficient to draw conclusion that deceased Himmat Rai was actually beaten by accused Manisha and Sonu Jangid. 28. As per the prosecution in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by Manisha and Sonu Jangid in the first instance, by administering sleeping pills, Vijay @ Himmat Rai was passed to dying position and thereafter, Sonu Jangid caused his death by strangulation at Mount Abu. There is no medical or other direct evidence led by the prosecution to establish that Himmat Rai was given sleeping pills by Manisha and Sonu Jangid to weaken his immune system. However, in this regard the prosecution relied upon testimony of the witness P.W.-17 Himanshu, the owner of Mangal Medical Store, the shop from which Sonu Jangid used to purchase sleeping pills “Tranix” and “Trika” and the verification of the site at the instance of Sonu pursuant to the information furnished vide Ex.P73. That apart, reliance is also placed on recovery of sleeping pills vide Ex.P48 from the residence of deceased Himmat Rai at the instance of the information furnished by Sonu under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P75. 29. The witness P.W.17-Himanshu turned hostile and deposed that he used to sell the medicine on the basis of the prescription and he does not know the person who used to purchase the medicine by name and the face. The suggestion of the prosecution that the Sonu Jangid used to purchase the medicine from his shop was denied by the said witness as incorrect. 30. Coming to the recovery of five pills of “Tranix” and ten pills of “Trika” at the instance of accused Sonu Jangid, it is pertinent to note that the witnesses of the recovery P.W.-21 Hazari Lal and P.W.-41 Brij Lal have categorically deposed that when they reached the house of the deceased, it was already open and the police personnel were sitting in the hall. The recovery was made vide Ex.P/48 on 29.12.10 whereas as per the deposition of P.W.22-Tejaram, since the flat of the deceased was locked and the keys were not traceable, the lock was broke open and yet another lock was put, the key whereof was with P.W.9-Asha. He further deposed that police came to the flat for making the search after 4 days from the date the lock was broken by them and at the time when the police came, the key of the flat was with Asha and thus, the recovery made from the house which was in exclusive possession of P.W.-9 Asha cannot be given much credence. It is pertinent to note that even the post mortem report does not reflect that the deceased was being administered the drugs indicated. In any case, in absence of any cogent evidence, merely on the basis of the alleged recovery of the sleeping pills, no conclusion can be drawn that the accused Manisha and Sonu Jangid were administering sleeping pills to the deceased with an intention to weaken his immune system. 31. As per the prosecution story unfolded during the trial, the deceased Himmat Rai had undergone an operation of left forearm at Ahmedabad and a rod was inserted therein. Himmat Rai was to be taken to Ahmedabad for post operation check up where he had undergone operation. As per deposition of the various witnesses discussed hereinabove, accused Sonu Jangid, on whom the deceased Himmat Rai was dependent for his care, was to accompany him for the post operation check-up to Ahmedabad. Further, the appellant Sonu Jangid along with Himmat Rai left Jaipur for Mount Abu in Himmat Rai’s Skoda car No.RJ-14-CD- 0819 and reached there on 19.12.10. In this regard, the reliance is placed on combined tax recovery challan receipt (Ex.P/8) issued by the staff of Municipal Board, Mount Abu at the entry point showing numbers of the various vehicles entering the municipal limit of Mount Abu including the vehicle No.RJ-14-CD-0819. It is alleged that Ajit accompanied by Gopal escorted appellant Sonu Jangid traveling in RJ-14-CD-0819 along with deceased Himmat Rai up to Bar in Indica Car No.RJ-19-TA-0520 and then went back to Jodhpur. However, the actual date of Sonu Jangid commencing the journey from Jaipur to Ahmedabad or Mount Abu is not disclosed by the prosecution. It is alleged that Ajit accompanied by Gopal escorted appellant Sonu Jangid traveling in RJ-14-CD-0819 along with deceased Himmat Rai up to Bar in Indica Car No.RJ-19-TA-0520 and then went back to Jodhpur. However, the actual date of Sonu Jangid commencing the journey from Jaipur to Ahmedabad or Mount Abu is not disclosed by the prosecution. Obviously, the said vehicle during the journey from Jaipur to Mount Abu passed through various Toll Posts but no evidence whatsoever was collected by the Investigating Officer from various Toll Posts to establish that the said vehicles passed through the Toll Posts and stopped there to pay the toll enroute from Jaipur to Mount Abu. P.W.9-Asha deposed that on 22.12.10 when she along with his sons Vishal & Vikram and Bunty went to search Himmat Rai, at Toll Post Kishangarh, they came to know that Himmat Rai’s car had passed through the Toll Post and proceeded towards Mega Highway, however, the date on which the vehicle passed through the said Toll Post is not disclosed. Asha further deposed that Sonu informed her that after passing through Mega Highway, they stayed in a hotel at Nathdwara but no evidence whatsoever is brought on record to establish that appellant Sonu Jangid travelled to Nathdwara. The details of alleged stay of Sonu at Nathdwara are also not brought on record. It is also not the prosecution case that any person had seen Ajit accompanied by Gopal traveling in the Indica car escorting Sonu Jangid during the transit from Jaipur up to Bar. The verification of the site from where the appellants Ajit and Gopal had escorted the Skoda Car RJ-14-CD-0819 vide Ex.P/30 and P/31 pursuant to the information supplied by them vide Ex.P/79 & P/82 on 31.12.10 at 8.40 AM & 9.15 AM respectively, is of no evidentiary value inasmuch as the said site had already been verified pursuant to the information furnished by the appellant Sonu Jangid under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, on 28.12.10 at 10.00 AM vide Ex.P/76. In this view of the matter, without there being any cogent evidence, the learned trial Judge has erred in accepting the prosecution case that the appellant Ajit accompanied by Gopal escorted Sonu Jangid up to Bar en route from Jaipur to Mount Abu. 32. In this view of the matter, without there being any cogent evidence, the learned trial Judge has erred in accepting the prosecution case that the appellant Ajit accompanied by Gopal escorted Sonu Jangid up to Bar en route from Jaipur to Mount Abu. 32. It is true that P.W.15-Dwarka Das and P.W.16-Shanker Lal have not recognized the appellant Sonu Jangid as the person traveling in Skoda car RJ-14-CD-0819, which as per the combined tax recovery challan (Ex.P/8) entered the municipal limit of Mount Abu on 19.12.10. But then, the fact remains that said car owned by deceased Himmat Rai which was in charge of the appellant Sonu Jangid as driver, entered the municipal limit of Mount Abu on 19.12.10. There is absolutely no reason as to why the tax recovery challan (Ex.P/8) issued by the said officials of the Municipal Board, Mount Abu as proof of the entry of the Skoda Car No.RJ-14-CD-0819 within the territorial limit of Municipal Board, Mount Abu, should be disbelieved. 33. Coming to the circumstance of appellant Sonu Jangid staying at Ashoka Hotel, Mount Abu, as per P.W.12-Prahlad Kumar, Ashoka Hotel which is in the name of Brijmohan Bansal is owned by five brothers, the management whereof is looked after by he and his brother Mahendra Bhai. The hotel consists of 27 rooms and the booking of the room is made by making entries in the register which contains 9 columns and out of them, 3 columns are filled by them and the remaining columns are filled by the customer and the last column by the Manager. The check out time of the hotel at the relevant time was 9 a.m. He further deposed that surveillance work of the hotel is assigned to Laxman Garasia and on his absence to Dinesh. As per P.W.13-Brijmohan, Hasim Bhai was posted as Manager of the hotel, who had produced the entry register before the police in his presence vide Ex.P/41. He deposed that the customer is permitted to enter in the hotel only after entry in the hotel register. P.W.34-Hasim Bhai deposed that on 19.12.10, he was at the reception of the hotel. The entries of the customers staying the hotel is made in the register (Ex.P/68). He deposed that the customer is permitted to enter in the hotel only after entry in the hotel register. P.W.34-Hasim Bhai deposed that on 19.12.10, he was at the reception of the hotel. The entries of the customers staying the hotel is made in the register (Ex.P/68). He deposed that on 19.12.10, while allotting Room No.106 to Sonu Agarwal (the name mentioned at entry no.114 [Ex.P/68] is ‘Sonu Jangid’ and not ‘Sonu Agarwal’) , the entries ‘A to B’ ‘C to D’ ‘G to H’ and ‘E to F’ were made by him. It is pertinent to note that the details alleged to have been entered by the said witness includes the entry number ‘114’ the date of arrival ‘19.12.10 8.30’ Room No. ‘106’ the name of the customer as ‘Sonu Jangid Jodhpur-CHB 19/542’ the number of persons male ‘2’ identification proof, number of the driving licence ‘D-L/RJ19/DLC/05/193687’ and date of departure as ‘20/12/10 ,8 AM’. He deposed that he does not know as to what was the vehicle number but in the register vehicle number is entered as ‘05193647’ whereas in Ex.P/68A in the relevant column vehicle number appears to have been made as ‘RJ 19 CA 0819’. In the last column of the register, the passenger named has signed as ‘Sonu’. There are more entries made in the register before and after the entry in question i.e. entry no. 114 on 19.12.10 and 20.12.10. P.W.20-Dinesh Kumar employed as Room Boy in the said hotel, who was produced by the prosecution to prove that two persons staying in the said hotel in Room No.106 on 19.12.10 were the appellants Sonu and Gopal, has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. But the relevant entry in the register maintained by the hotel shows that the person named ‘Sonu Jangid’ stayed in the said hotel on 19.12.10 at 8.30 AM and departed on 20.12.10 at 8 AM. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court has compared the signature of the appellant Sonu in the register (Ex.P/68) with his admitted signature on the charge read over and his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and opined that both the signature have resemblance. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court has compared the signature of the appellant Sonu in the register (Ex.P/68) with his admitted signature on the charge read over and his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and opined that both the signature have resemblance. We are in agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned trial Judge and thus, in our considered opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Judge regarding the appellant Sonu Jangid staying in the said hotel on 19.12.10, after due appreciation of evidence on record, is absolutely justified and cannot be said to be erroneous. 34. As per the prosecution before reaching Mount Abu on 19.12.10 on the way the appellant Sonu in the presence of the appellant Gopal caused death of Himmat Rai by strangulation but for want of opportunity to dispose of the dead body, put the same into dicky of the car and thereafter, he along with Gopal stayed at Ashoka Hotel, Mount Abu. As already noticed, it is not proved that appellant Gopal stayed with Sonu Jangid at Ashoka Hotel, Mount Abu on 19.12.10. There is no evidence brought on record for establishing the fact that at the time when the appellant Sonu Jangid caused death of Himmat Rai, he was accompanied by appellant Gopal. However, in this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the verification of the site (Ex.P/28), where Sonu Jangid strangulated Himmat Rai, at the instance of appellant Gopal on the information being furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The information is alleged to have been furnished by the appellant Gopal on 28.12.10 at 11.10 AM vide Ex.P/80 and the verification of the site is alleged to have been made on 28.12.10 at 11.45 AM but as a matter of fact, the site stood already verified vide Ex.P/26 on 27.12.10 at 8.20 AM pursuant to the information furnished by the appellant Sonu Jangid under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 27.12.10 at 6 AM vide Ex.P/70 and thus, the fact which was already known to the police could not be said to have been discovered at the instance of the appellant Gopal pursuant to the information supplied by him subsequently. 35. 35. As per the case set out by the prosecution, the dead body of Himmat Rai kept in the dicky of the Skoda Car No.RJ-19-CD-0819 was thrown in a ditch at the upper turn of Forest View Point in Satghoom Area of Mount Abu on 20.12.10 by appellant Sonu Jangid with the help of appellant Dinesh, who had reached there in his Indica Car No.RJ-19-TA-0763. The site from where the dead body was thrown in the ditch was verified vide Ex.P/25 on 27.12.10 at 7.30 PM pursuant to the information furnished by the appellant Sonu under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/71 on 27.12.10 at 6:15 AM. At the same time, the police obtained the information regarding the said site from the appellant Dinesh vide Ex.P/96 on 13.1.11 at 3 PM and pursuant thereto the site was verified vide Ex.P/32 at 4:30 PM. Suffice it to say that the verification of site at the instance of the appellant Dinesh on the basis of the information supplied by him after the site being already verified way back on 27.12.10 pursuant to the information supplied by appellant Sonu Jangid as aforesaid, has no evidentiary value. 36. According to the prosecution after throwing the dead body of the deceased, the appellants Sonu Jangid and Dinesh, parked the Skoda car RJ-14-CD-0819 for repairing at the garage M/s Tirupati Auto by the appellants Sonu and Dinesh on 20.12.10 around 8- 8:30 PM. The site of the garage where the vehicle was kept for repairing was verified vide Ex.P/27 on 28.12.10 at 8:20 AM in pursuance of the information furnished by appellant Sonu Jangid on 28.12.10 at 7:00 AM vide Ex.P/74. After verification of the site as aforesaid at the instance of the appellant Sonu Jangid, the Investigating Officer again obtained the information from appellant Dinesh regarding the said site, after a lapse of about 15 days on 13.1.11 at 3:30 PM and thus, the verification of the fact already discovered, at the instance of appellant Dinesh vide Ex.P/33 on 13.1.11 at 5:30 PM has also no evidentiary value. For the parity of the reasons, the verification of the said site at the instance of Gopal vide Ex.P/29 on 28.12.10 at 12:30 PM from where he along with Dinesh remove the vehicle and left the same at a place in Gujrat is also of no evidentiary value inasmuch as only the first statement made i.e. the statement made by the appellant Sonu Jangid regarding the verification of the site vide Ex.P/74 shall be relevant and not the subsequent information furnished by the appellant Gopal and Dinesh about the fact already discovered. 37. The place where the Skoda car was parked i.e. Railway Station Sidhpur was also known to the police inasmuch as the abandoned car had already been seized by Gujarat Police on 25.12.10 vide Ex.P/62 pursuant to the information received from the Station Manager, Railway Station, Sidhpur, vide Ex.P/61 and the information regarding the vehicle was sought from the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City vide Ex.P/64. Thus, nothing turns on the factum of verification of the said site at the instance of appellant Dinesh vide Ex.P/34 on 14.1.11 at 5:30 PM pursuant to the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/97 on 14.1.11 at 12:15 PM. 38. Coming to the recovery of car RJ-19-TA-0520 and the key of Skoda car lying in the said car vide Ex.P/54 & P/58 on 1.1.11 at 7:00 AM and 6:45 AM respectively, pursuant to the information alleged to have been supplied by appellant Ajit under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide Ex.P/83 on 28.12.10 at 1:25 PM, it is pertinent to note that the Skoda car was seized by the police vide Ex.P/59 on 1.1.11 from Police Station, GRP Mehsana. The Seizure Memo does not bear the time of seizure. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as per deposition of P.W.23-Govind Bhai, Head Constable, Railway Police Station, Mehsana, the said vehicle was handed over to him by Amar Singh, ASI, who had brought the said vehicle from Sidhpur. As per his deposition, Ishwar Singh, ASI, had reached Railway Police Station, Mehsana to take away the car at 9:00 AM whereas as per P.W.23-Govind Bhai, Ishwar Singh, ASI, reached the Railway Police Station, Mehsana around 11:00 AM. As per his deposition, Ishwar Singh, ASI, had reached Railway Police Station, Mehsana to take away the car at 9:00 AM whereas as per P.W.23-Govind Bhai, Ishwar Singh, ASI, reached the Railway Police Station, Mehsana around 11:00 AM. To the contrary, P.W.30-Daya Ram, Constable Driver posted at Police Chowki, Mount Abu, Ishwar Singh, ASI, had reached at the chowki at 9-10 AM and thereafter they proceeded to Mehsana and reached there around 1-1:30 PM. He further deposed that after reaching Mount Abu, the car was parked and key thereof was handed over by him to Ishwar Singh, ASI. Thus, on the basis of the record, it stands established that the key of the Skoda car which was in the first instance shifted from Sidhpur to Mehsana Police Station and thereafter was brought to Mount Abu was already available with the police. That apart, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the key of the Skoda car was handed over by the appellant Dinesh to appellant Ajit and thus, the recovery of key of Skoda car at his instance does not inspire confidence. As already discussed above, there is no cogent evidence on record showing that appellant Ajit travelling in car RJ- 19-TA-0520 escorted Skoda Car RJ-14-CD-0819 driven by appellant Sonu Jangid and thus, recovery of said vehicle at his instance cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstances against him. More so when the owner of the vehicle was not examined by the prosecution to establish that the said vehicle was handed over by him to appellant Ajit on hire basis or otherwise. 39. Yet another incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the call details Ex.P/35 to Ex.P/40 showing that appellant Sonu Jangid had frequent conversation with the appellants Manisha, Ajit, Gopal and Dinesh during the relevant period. As per deposition of Investigating Officer P.W.36-Kanhaiya Lal, the memo of call details obtained was prepared as Ex.P/9. As per Ex.P/9, the call details of Cellular Nos.7568077193, 9509247146 & 9460769280, 9571363817, 9828898813 and 9928837198 belonging to Sonu, Ajit, Dinesh, Manisha and Gopal respectively were submitted by Shri Subhash, Constable No.83, Police Station, Mount Abu. However, a perusal of the call details placed on record as Ex.P/35 to P/40, reveals that the same do not disclose the names of the subscribers of the respective SIM numbers. However, a perusal of the call details placed on record as Ex.P/35 to P/40, reveals that the same do not disclose the names of the subscribers of the respective SIM numbers. There is no evidence on record showing that the appellants were the subscribers of the respective cellular numbers as specified in Ex.P/9. The learned trial Judge while relying upon the call details and arriving at the conclusion, has proceeded with the assumption that the appellants were the subscribers of the respective cellular numbers as projected by the prosecution. As per the Investigating Officer, the call details were obtained and submitted by Subhash, Constable as mentioned in Ex.P/9, however, he was not examined before the court by the prosecution. As per memo (Ex.P/9), Manisha was subscriber of Cellular No. 9828898813, however, the call details (Ex.P/37) which is said to be the call details of cellular number subscribed by Manisha are the call details for Cellular No.9887102424, which is not disclosed to be cellular number of Manisha. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Manisha, the call details of Cellular No.9828898813 placed on record as Ex.P/36, also do not contain any conversation with the Cellular No. 7568077193 alleged to be subscribed by appellant Sonu Jangid. Suffice it to say that without looking into the call details on the basis of assumption and presumption, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge regarding the frequent conversation of appellant Sonu Jangid with the appellants Manisha, Ajit, Gopal and Dinesh or by Ajit with Gopal and Dinesh, is ex facie perverse. Moreover, no evidence with regard to call details which are not even duly certified could be admitted unless the competent officer of concerned cellular company come forward to prove the same in the proceedings as per Section 65B (4) of Indian Evidence Act. In absence of certificate requisite under the provisions of the Evidence Act and failure to examine the competent officer in evidence by the prosecution, on the facts and in the circumstances discussed above, the call details even otherwise, cannot be relied upon. The reliance in this regard may be placed on Bench decisions of this court in ‘Toofanmal Jat & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan’, 2018 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 577 and ‘Mohanlal @ Kalu vs. State of Rajasthan’, (D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1196/15, decided on 8.5.18). 40. The reliance in this regard may be placed on Bench decisions of this court in ‘Toofanmal Jat & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan’, 2018 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 577 and ‘Mohanlal @ Kalu vs. State of Rajasthan’, (D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1196/15, decided on 8.5.18). 40. Against appellant Manisha, the prosecution has relied upon three more incriminating circumstances i.e. the recovery of laptop of deceased Himmat Rai, verification of the place where Sonu Jangid and Manisha belaboured Himmat Rai and confined him in injured state in a room and the extra judicial confession made by Manisha before P.W.26-Kalyan Singh. 41. As per the prosecution, pursuant to the information supplied by the appellant Manisha vide Ex.P/85 on 28.12.10 at 9.50 AM, the laptop of Himmat Rai was recovered from her residence 114/208 Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Shipra Pathu, Jaipur, vide Ex.P/47 on 29.12.10 at 5.40 PM. There is no evidence brought on record to prove that Lenovo laptop recovered at the instance of appellant Manisha was as a matter of fact owned by deceased Himmat Rai. Nobody has identified it to be the laptop belonging to Himmat Rai. Moreover, admittedly, after resolution of the dispute between Manisha and deceased Himmat Rai, Manisha used to visit Himmat Rai often and therefore, the possession of the laptop belonging to deceased Himmat Rai by itself cannot be construed to be an incriminating circumstance against the appellant Manisha to establish the factum of her hatching the conspiracy with Sonu Jangid to kill Himmat Rai. Further, it is not even the case of the prosecution that any incriminating material was found stored in the laptop recovered from the possession of appellant Manisha. 42. In absence of the factum of Manisha belabouring deceased Himmat Rai being proved on the basis of any cogent evidence, the verification of the place pursuant to the information supplied by her under Section 27 of the Evidence Act also by itself cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstance against her. 42. In absence of the factum of Manisha belabouring deceased Himmat Rai being proved on the basis of any cogent evidence, the verification of the place pursuant to the information supplied by her under Section 27 of the Evidence Act also by itself cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstance against her. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the place alleged to be the place where appellants Sonu Jangid and Manisha belaboured deceased Himmat Rai had already been verified on 29.12.10 at 8 AM at the instance of Sonu Jangid pursuant to the information furnished by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act vide Ex.P/72 on 27.12.10 at 10.45 AM and therefore, the subsequent verification on 29.12.10 at 4.45 PM vide Ex.P/53 at the instance of appellant Manisha in respect of the fact already discovered, also has no evidentiary value. 43. The prosecution has heavily relied upon extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by appellant Manisha before P.W.26-Kalyan Singh in terms that Sonu has killed Vijay @ Himmat Rai and she had only consented for that. As per P.W.26-Kalyan Singh, on 25.12.10 around 6-6.30 PM, he received a telephonic call from Manisha who was detained by police at Bilara Police Station to get her released. Thereupon, he reached the Police Station, Bilara where Manisha was sitting on a chabutari along with 2-4 more persons not known to him, on inquiry being made as to what had happened, Manisha revealed that she has committed a blunder, Sonu has killed Vijay and not she, she had only consented. It is true that as per Ex.P/42, the arrest memo of Manisha, she was arrested on 26.12.10 by S.I., Police Station, Mount Abu but the fact remains that on 25.12.10 she was detained at Police Station, Bilara. Even according to P.W.26-Kalyan Singh, on being detained at Police Station, Bilara, Manisha contacted him on telephone and thereupon, he rushed to the Police Station, Bilara. Thus, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by Manisha while she was in custody of police, is not open to be relied upon. According to the said witness, Manisha contacted him on mobile phone, however, to prove the conversation, no attempt was made by the prosecution to bring the call details on record. That apart, P.W.26-Kalyan Singh has stated in unequivocal terms that he never had any intimate talk with Manisha prior to 25.12.10. According to the said witness, Manisha contacted him on mobile phone, however, to prove the conversation, no attempt was made by the prosecution to bring the call details on record. That apart, P.W.26-Kalyan Singh has stated in unequivocal terms that he never had any intimate talk with Manisha prior to 25.12.10. Nothing is brought on record to show that Manisha had reason to confide with P.W.26-Kalyan Singh with whom she had no close association. Thus, the evidence of extra judicial confession appears to be unnatural and unbelievable. 44. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Investigating Officer P.W.36-Kanhaiya Lal deposed that during investigation vide statement of P.W.24-Shripal, there was a reference of Kalyan Singh and therefore, he was summoned to give the statement. In the first instance, he denied the suggestion that the statements of Kalyan Singh and Shripal were recorded at Police Station, Mount Abu and not at Jodhpur, however, immediately thereafter, he stated that their statements were recorded at Police Station, Mount Abu but inadvertently, the place of recording the statement was mentioned as Jodhpur. The prosecution record in no manner suggest that the statements of P.W. 24-Shripal and P.W.26-Kalyan Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded at Mount Abu and not at Jodhpur as mentioned in Ex.D/10 & D/11 respectively. As a matter of fact, prior to the statement of P.W.36-Kanhaiya Lal being recorded by the court on 2.9.13, P.W.26-Kalyan Singh was examined on 8.4.13 wherein he deposed that his statements were recorded on 30.12.10 at Police Station, Mount Abu and not at Jodhpur and therefore, it appears that for this reason, P.W.36- Kanhaiya Lal has attempted to improve his statement. P.W.26- Kalyan Singh further deposed that on 30.12.10 he had gone to Mount Abu on his own and he was not summoned by anybody. He deposed that on 30.12.10 when his statement was recorded at Police Station, Mount Abu, P.W.24-Shripal was not accompanying him, he never met P.W.24-Shripal on 30.12.10 at Mount Abu and their statements were not recorded at the same time. To the contrary, as per P.W.36-Kanhaiya Lal, he had summoned both these witnesses through SHO, Jodhpur and they had come to Mount Abu together. Strangely enough, as per deposition of P.W.24-Shripal, his statement was recorded at Jodhpur and 5-6 days after 25.12.10 when he went to Mount Abu, no interrogation was made by the police and he had given no statement. Strangely enough, as per deposition of P.W.24-Shripal, his statement was recorded at Jodhpur and 5-6 days after 25.12.10 when he went to Mount Abu, no interrogation was made by the police and he had given no statement. Thus, apparent discrepancies in the statement of the aforesaid witnesses discussed above, also creates a doubt regarding truthfulness of the witness P.W.26-Kalyan Singh. 45. In this view of the discussion above, the most of the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution as against the appellants Manisha, Ajit, Gopal and Dinesh are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the incriminating circumstances to the extent found proved, do not lead to irresistible conclusion regarding their guilt and thus, the conviction of appellants Manisha for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and the appellants Ajit, Gopal and Dinesh for offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 46. So far as appellant Sonu Jangid is concerned, besides the incriminating circumstances found proved discussed hereinabove, there are many more incriminating circumstances which are found proved against him. 47. On the basis of the information supplied by him vide Ex.P/70, the place where he strangulated Vijay @ Himmat Rai was verified vide Ex.P/26. In pursuance of the information supplied by him vide Ex.P/71, the place from where the dead body of deceased Himmat Rai was thrown in the ditch at Mount Abu was verified vide Ex.P/25. That apart, pursuant to the information furnished by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act vide Ex.P/77, watch, two photographs of the deceased, ATM card cover and a cheque of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur alleged to have been issued by Himmat Rai were recovered vide Ex.P/54. At the instance of Sonu, the towel alleged to have been used by him for strangulation of deceased Himmat Rai was recovered vide Ex.P/18. A Nokia mobile phone of deceased was also recovered at the instance of appellant Sonu Jangid vide Ex.P/93. It is true that while effecting recoveries vide Ex.P/93, P/25, & P/26, no independent witness was called by the police, however, P.W.11- Bharat Lal, a Constable, examined before the court has deposed that the recoveries were effected before him. A Nokia mobile phone of deceased was also recovered at the instance of appellant Sonu Jangid vide Ex.P/93. It is true that while effecting recoveries vide Ex.P/93, P/25, & P/26, no independent witness was called by the police, however, P.W.11- Bharat Lal, a Constable, examined before the court has deposed that the recoveries were effected before him. The witness of recovery of towel vide Ex.P/18 and the verification of site vide Ex.P/23, P.W.27-Mukhtiyar Khan and P.W.11-Bharat Lal have deposed that appellant Sonu Jangid on the way from Gurushikhar to Mount Abu got recovered the towel. P.W.22-Tejaram and P.W.24-Shripal have confirmed the recoveries made as aforesaid vide Ex.P/54. 48. One more incriminating circumstance against the appellant Sonu Jangid relied upon by the prosecution is regarding extra judicial confession made by him before P.W.22-Teja Ram Bishnoi to the effect that he has committed mistake in killing Vijay @ Himmat Rai. It is pertinent to note that the exact date of making extra judicial confession by the appellant Sonu Jangid as aforesaid has not been disclosed by the said witness and further, admittedly, as per deposition of the said witness, at the time of making such confession, Sonu was in police custody. That apart, there was no reason for appellant Sonu Jangid reposing faith in P.W.22-Tejaram. In this view of the matter, the case of the prosecution that appellant Sonu Jangid made extra judicial confession cannot be accepted. 49. As discussed hereinabove, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Sonu Jangid was employed by deceased Himmat Rai as cook and driver. Deceased Himmat Rai had undergone an operation of left forearm at Ahmedabad and a rod was inserted therein. Deceased Himmat Rai who was in precarious health condition was dependent upon Sonu Jangid and he was to be taken for post operation check up to Ahmedabad, the place where he had undergone operation. As per deposition of various witnesses, they were informed by Manisha that Sonu Jangid has taken deceased Himmat Rai to Ahmedabad for post operation check up. It is true that it has not come on record as to whether deceased Himmat Rai was actually taken to Ahmedabad by appellant Sonu Jangid for post operation check up or not. As per deposition of various witnesses, they were informed by Manisha that Sonu Jangid has taken deceased Himmat Rai to Ahmedabad for post operation check up. It is true that it has not come on record as to whether deceased Himmat Rai was actually taken to Ahmedabad by appellant Sonu Jangid for post operation check up or not. But the fact remains that the Skoda car of the deceased which was usually driven by Sonu Jangid as driver of the deceased had entered the municipal limit of Mount Abu on 19.12.10. In this regard, the combined tax recovery challan receipt (Ex.P/8) placed on record is self explanatory. The presence of Sonu Jangid along with one companion and Skoda car stands fortified from the entries in the register of Ashoka Hotel (Ex.P/68). As concluded by us hereinabove, the said entry bears signature of Sonu Jangid. That apart, the verification of the various places i.e. the place where he strangulated deceased Himmat Rai, the place from where the body of the deceased was thrown in a ditch, the place where the Skoda car was parked for repairing was made pursuant to the information supplied by the appellant Sonu Jangid under Section 27 of Evidence Act. The recoveries of various belongings of the deceased Himmat Rai and towel used for strangulation were also made at the instance of appellant Sonu Jangid. It is true that the factum of appellant Sonu Jangid administering sleeping pills to the deceased Himmat Rai is not proved on the basis of the cogent evidence on record. Further, the call details and extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by Sonu Jangid before Tejaram are also not found admissible in evidence but the fact remains that the entire incriminating circumstances against the appellant Sonu Jangid discussed hereinabove were put to him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., however, he simply denied the same as ‘incorrect’ or ‘for want of knowledge’. The deceased being solely dependent on the appellant Sonu Jangid for his care and used to move along with him and thus, the appellant Sonu Jangid was under an obligation to explain as to how deceased Himmat Rai and his Skoda car which was being driven by him as driver, reached Mount Abu. It is not the case set out by the appellant that on fateful day, he had not moved to Mount Abu and he was somewhere else. It is not the case set out by the appellant that on fateful day, he had not moved to Mount Abu and he was somewhere else. Suffice it to say that the complete denial of the appellant Sonu Jangid and his not furnishing any explanation regarding the movement of deceased from Jaipur to Mount Abu and his death, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, leads to an adverse inference against him. [Vide State of Mahrashtra Vs. Suresh (2000)1 SCC 471 and State of Mahrashtra Vs. Damu and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 269 ]. 50. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the incriminating circumstances found proved beyond reasonable doubt against appellant Sonu Jangid leads to irresistible conclusion that Himmat Rai has been killed by him and none else and therefore, his conviction for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC deserves to be maintained. 51. In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant Sonu Jangid being D.B. Criminal Appeal No.521/15 is dismissed. The order passed by the learned trial Judge convicting and sentencing appellant Sonu Jangid as indicated above, is upheld. The appeals preferred by the appellants Ajit Mali, Manisha, Gopal Khatri and Dinesh Kumawat being D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 383/15, 425/15, 426/15 & 432/15 respectively are allowed. The conviction of the appellant Manisha for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and the conviction of the appellants Ajit, Gopal Khatri and Dinesh Kumawat for offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC is set aside. They are acquitted of the charges, giving benefit of doubt. The bail bonds of appellants Manisha, Ajit Mali, Gopal Khatri and Dinesh Kumawat, who are on bail, shall stand discharged. However, each of the appellants Manisha, Ajit Mali, Gopal Khatri and Dinesh Kumawat shall furnish a personal bond in Rs.50,000/- and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge in terms of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.