JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. - This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.41/2009 whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows: Under sec.302 IPC - life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years Under sec.363 IPC - 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one year Under sec.376(2) (f) IPC - 10 years rigorous imprison with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 1% years Brief facts of the case are that on 07.06.2009 in the night at about 2:30AM complainant Binja Ram submitted a written report at Police Station, Pokaran wherein it was stated that on 06.06.2009 in the night at about 10:00PM when he returned to his home, his wife and 5 children were there. At that time, the complainant was to take his dinner. When he was started taking food, his cousin (mother's sister's son) Banshi Ram came to his house, who was wearing pant & shirt and also having towel (gamchha) around his neck. His wife offered food to Banshi Ram also. After taking the meal, Banshi Ram told that he is going to house of Taga Ram at the residence of his 'mausi' (aunt). 2. Thereafter, complainant's wife and his sons Prem & Prakash went from complainant's house to the place where his niece Pinky's marriage functions were going on. The complainant, his sons Laxman, Dinesh and daughter Meena remained at the house and all four slept on separate cots. At about 12:00PM, complainant's wife with his two sons returned and asked complainant that Veena is not there at the cot. Search was made in nearby area, Veena was wearing yellow coloured stripped Kameej. When she was not found in the nearby area then complainant, along with Kalyana Ram, Kesra Ram and Taga Ram went outside for search. When they were going towards 'haudi' then they all saw that Banshi Ram was standing having Veena in his lap. As soon they reached near to 'haudi', Banshi Ram left Veena at the corner of 'haudi' and ran away. When they were going towards 'haudi' then they all saw that Banshi Ram was standing having Veena in his lap. As soon they reached near to 'haudi', Banshi Ram left Veena at the corner of 'haudi' and ran away. At that time, there were no clothes on body of Veena and there were injury marks on her neck and blood was clotted near place of urination. He also stated that her daughter was kidnapped, she was rapped and thereafter she was killed and her body was left near 'haudi'. 3. On this report, case was registered under sections 363, 376 and 302 IPC and investigation started. During investigation, memos of naksha-mauka, halat-mauka, surat-hal of the dead body were prepared and 'panchnama' was also prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem and recoveries were made from the site. After the investigation, challan was filed and the learned trial court framed charges. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. The accused Banshi Lal in his statements under section 313 CrPC, 1973 stated that his Voter ID Card was recovered by Police at the Police Station from his pocket and refused that he went to house of Binja Ram. As regard testimony of other prosecution witnesses against him, he stated that he does not know. He further stated that his clothes were taken by Police at Pokaran Police Station. At the end, he stated that he did not commit any wrong with Veena nor he murdered her, he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. No witness was examined on behalf of accused in defence. 5. Learned trial court after hearing arguments passed judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. 6. Being aggrieved by aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2010, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal on various grounds. It was contended on behalf of appellant that in this case all the witnesses are real brothers and the prosecution has not produced any independent witness in this case. All these witnesses for first time saw Veena in the hands of the accused near 'haudi' and admittedly, there was dark night and there were Babool shrubs also. There are material contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses. Under these circumstances, how these witnesses recognized the accused is doubtful. All these witnesses for first time saw Veena in the hands of the accused near 'haudi' and admittedly, there was dark night and there were Babool shrubs also. There are material contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses. Under these circumstances, how these witnesses recognized the accused is doubtful. The witnesses have admitted in their evidence that they have not seen face of the accused but they saw him from back. There was no signs of the commission of offence near 'haudi' and the FIR is based on concocted facts. 7. It was further argued that the prosecution has also failed to connect information under section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the accused with the commission of the crime by accused-appellant. The FSL report is not clear to connect the accused with the crime. Blood samples of deceased were not taken and therefore, it can not be established that the human-blood found on body of the accused was of deceased Veena. It was also argued on behalf of appellant that smegma was found present on male part of the accused, which shows that he did not commit rape on deceased. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the accused-appellant and contended that the evidence on record completely establish that the accused came at the house of complainant Binja Ram at the fateful night, complainant's wife also offerd him food being cousin brother of her husband and thereafter, complainant's wife went to attend marriage function in near relation. When she returned, she found that their daughter Veena was not there and then complainant, along with his brothers Kalyan Ram, Taga Ram and Kesra Ram made search. When these persons went near 'haudi', they saw the accused having body of deceased Veena in his hands. Upon seeing some persons coming in that direction, he left the body at the corner of haudi and ran away. 9. Apart from this, human blood was found on the clothes, which were recovered at the information of accused-appellant, his purse and Voter ID Card were recovered from the site. On the information of accused-appellant, Kameej which deceased Veena was wearing, was recovered wrapped in 'gamchha' belonging to the accused. Thus, the evidence placed on record clearly established that it was the accused-appellant Banshi Lal who took Veena aged 3 years, committed rape on her and thereafter murdered her. 10. On the information of accused-appellant, Kameej which deceased Veena was wearing, was recovered wrapped in 'gamchha' belonging to the accused. Thus, the evidence placed on record clearly established that it was the accused-appellant Banshi Lal who took Veena aged 3 years, committed rape on her and thereafter murdered her. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence placed on record. 11. In this case, Dr Anil Gupta (PW4) was examined, who stated that on 07.06.2009 he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC, Pokaran and performed postmortem of baby Veena daughter of Binja Ram, aged 3 years, whose body was identified by Kesra Ram. Upon examination, he found that face of the body turned pale, eyes were closed and filled with sand, pupil dilated and mouth was filled with clotted blood, saliva and sand. There were signs of teeth on both sides of chest, abrasions were found near nose, chin and also on between both thighs. Abrasions were also found on back of left shoulder, which were 8x6 cms in size. 12. Upon examination of genitals of the dead body, there was dried clotted blood on the private part, white dried matter on upper side of private part in pubic region, labia majora & minora were filled with white discharge along with dried blood, the walls of labia majora & minora were reddened and lower portion of the vagina was ruptured, hymen also cut and reddened and in the opinion of PW4 Dr. Anil Gupta, death was due to choking and breathlessness by closing mouth & nose. On examination, it was also found that sexual intercourse was performed and the deceased had died within 10-16 hours. From the evidence placed on record, it is clear that death of Veena was homicidal. 13. Complainant Binja Ram, who was examined as PW2, supported contents of the FIR and stated that he was sleeping on the cot on 06.06.2009. When his wife returned at about 12 or 12:30AM after attending marriage function, she found that their daughter Veena was not on the cot. Veena was wearing yellow coloured strips Kameej. Upon search made near the house, she was not found. Thereafter search was made further around by him (Binja Ram) along with Kalyana Ram, Kesra Ram, Taga Ram. When his wife returned at about 12 or 12:30AM after attending marriage function, she found that their daughter Veena was not on the cot. Veena was wearing yellow coloured strips Kameej. Upon search made near the house, she was not found. Thereafter search was made further around by him (Binja Ram) along with Kalyana Ram, Kesra Ram, Taga Ram. When they all reached near 'haudi' then accused Banshi Ram, present in the court, was seen having body of Veena in his hands near 'haudi'. As soon they reached near 'haudi', Banshi Ram left her body there and ran away. 14. Kesa Ram appeared in the witness box as PW3 and supported the statement of PW2 Binja Ram. He stated that he along with Binja Ram and Taga Ram went to search Veena. When they reached near 'haudi' then they saw that accused Banshi Ram was having body of Veena in his hands. As soon they reached near 'haudi', he left the body of Veena and ran away. They found that Veena has died. There were number of injury marks and abrasions on her chin, neck, hands, thighs and private part. This witness admitted that Police came to house of Binja Ram and prepared Exhibits P2 and P3. 15. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Binja Ram is his real brother. On that day, there was marriage in the village at the residence of Koja Ram. He also admitted that he has not seen Banshi Ram taking the child. He admitted that Binja Ram's wife went to house of Asha in the marriage function. He also admitted that whey went for search of Veena, at that time there was dark night and they search her at every place in the village. He also admitted that near the 'haudi' there were Babool shrubs and it is true that it is not possible to see a man across the shrubs and the accused was at a distance when they saw him running away. He further stated that they saw him from back when the accused was running towards cremation ground. He further stated that he does not remember what type of clothes accused was wearing and they reached at 'haudi' in two minutes. 16. Taga Ram, who is also brother of complainant Binja Ram, appeared in the witness box as PW6 and supported the evidence led by PW2 and PW3. He further stated that he does not remember what type of clothes accused was wearing and they reached at 'haudi' in two minutes. 16. Taga Ram, who is also brother of complainant Binja Ram, appeared in the witness box as PW6 and supported the evidence led by PW2 and PW3. In the cross-examination, he stated that after making search in the village at different places, they went towards 'haudi' and accused Banshi Ram, on hearing their voices, ran away. He ran towards North side from 'haudi'. He further stated that near 'haudi' there were Babool shrubs and accused was not seen through shrubs. It is true that he did not see Banshi Ram taking the child. This witness further stated that it is wrong to say that his brother would have himself killed his daughter due to hate and would have falsely implicated Banshi Ram. 17. PW5 Smt Asha w/o Binja Ram, mother of deceased Veena, appeared in the witness box and stated that her daughter Veena was aged 3 years. Two months ago, she went to attend marriage in her relation at about 9PM with her sons Prem and Prakash, leaving behind her children Veena, Laxman and Dinesh. Her husband was also at the home and they were sleeping on cots. When she returned at her home, she found that Veena was not on her cot. Her husband went in her search in the village and her daughter was found near 'haudi' in bad condition. She further stated that accused Banshi Ram came to their house on that day and after taking meal, he returned back by saying that he is going to house of his 'mausi'. 18. From the evidence placed on record, it is manifestly clear that on the fateful day i.e. on 06.06.2009, accused Banshi Ram came at the house of complainant. At that time they were taking dinner. Wife of the complainant, Smt Asha also offered food to the accused and after taking the meal, accused Banshi Ram went out saying that he is going to house of his 'mausi'. Smt Asha went to attend marriage function in near relation and deceased Veena, complainant Binja Ram and two children stayed at the house, (9 of 13) [CRLA-428/2010] sleeping on separate cots. Smt Asha went to attend marriage function in near relation and deceased Veena, complainant Binja Ram and two children stayed at the house, (9 of 13) [CRLA-428/2010] sleeping on separate cots. When PW5 Smt Asha returned to home at about 12 or 12:30AM, Veena was not found on her cot and the she enquired from her husband. When she was not found in nearby places then Binja Ram, along with his brothers Kalayan Ram, Kesra Ram and Taga Ram went to search her further. When all these persons reached near 'haudi', they saw accused Banshi Ram having body of Veena in his hands. When they reached near him, he left the body of Veena and ran away. 19. Although it has come in evidence that near the 'haudi' there were Babool shrubs and the witness PW2 Binja Ram stated in his cross-examination that on hearing their voices, accused Banshi Ram ran away and it is true that they saw his back while running away and could not see his face; however, when the accused came to residence of the complainant and happens to be near relative and wife of the complainant offered him food and the accused is very well known; then it is possible that while seeing from behind still the person can be recognized by his appearance. Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1965 SC 712 - Kirpal Singh v. State of U.P. held that a person intimately known to the witnesses, can be identified by voice and gait. 20. The contention of the accused-appellant that the complainant hate his daughter and he himself has killed his daughter and falsely implicated him, can not be accepted. Prosecution witness PW1 Sunder Lal in his statement deposed that on 07.06.2009 in the morning, the Police in the presence of Dala Ram Bheel and Binja Ram photographed the place of incident and prepared Ex.P1 and recovered blood-smeared soil from the place of incident and an old purse, in which Rs. 80/- were there and further, Voter ID Card of Banshi Ram s/o Bhera Ram Bheel was recovered from the place of incident. Police also prepared Ex.P2, in which at place A to B he had signed. He further stated that there were abrasions on genital parts of the deceased and dried blood was found on anus of the deceased. Abrasions were also found near neck and on several places on the body. Police also prepared Ex.P2, in which at place A to B he had signed. He further stated that there were abrasions on genital parts of the deceased and dried blood was found on anus of the deceased. Abrasions were also found near neck and on several places on the body. Panchnama Ex.P3 was prepared by Police. 21. In the cross-examination, it was stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, a yellow-coloured Kameej was lying there which was taken in possession by Police. He further stated that it is true that the Kameej and purse have not been produced in the court today. 22. PW7 Khenvra Ram and PW8 Kirta Ram were examined as witnesses of recovery. PW7 Khenvra Ram in his statement stated that near about 3 months ago the accused-appellant, before him and Kirta Ram, recovered one towel (gamchha) and one yellowcoloured full sleeves Kameej from below a stone near wall of the cremation ground, which were taken in possession by Police and prepared Exhibits P9 and P10, on which their signature were taken. Other recovery witness Kirta Ram (PW8) turned hostile. 23. PW9 Sang Singh in his statement deposed that he was incharge of Malkhana at Police Station Pokaran and exhibited entries of Malkhana Register as Exhibits P11 and P11-A. In the cross-examination, he admitted that before 24th the recovered articles were sent to office of Superintendent of Police two times and it is true that there is no entry in this Register about sending the recovered articles before 24th of that month. He further stated that the cause for return of recovered articles from the SP Office may be some objections. The recovered articles were sent back on 24th after removing objections. He further admitted that verification of entries of this case were not made by the SHO. 24. Investigation Officer PW13 Narayan Lal in his statement deposed that on 07.06.2009 complainant Binja Ram came to Police Station and submitted a report, upon which FIR No.112/2009 was registered and Exhibits P1 site inspection memo, P2 memo of surat-hal dead body, P3 Panchnama and P4 memo of delivery of dead body to Binja Ram after postmortem were prepared. The accused-appellant was arrested vide Ex.P15. He further stated that from possession of the accused kameej, pant, kachha which he was wearing at the time of incident were taken in possession by Police and prepared memo Ex.P16. The accused-appellant was arrested vide Ex.P15. He further stated that from possession of the accused kameej, pant, kachha which he was wearing at the time of incident were taken in possession by Police and prepared memo Ex.P16. The accused Banshi Ram at his own gave information that he took Veena from her house, she was wearing kameej, which he pulled off and the same was hidden below a stone near wall of cremation ground wrapped in his 'angochha'. On this information, recoveries were made and memos Exhibits P9 and P10 were prepared. 25. He further stated about preparation of Exs.P18 to 29 photographs of the place of incident and preparation of forwarding letter for recovered articles to SP Jaisalmer Ex.P30. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the clothes which were recovered at the instance of the accused were not identified from any witness. The FSL report was placed on record as Exs.P32 & P36. The FSL report shows that packets 1,2,3, A, B, C tallied with specimen seal and found in order while the packets marked D, E, a, 2, 3, 4, 5 received unsealed. 26. From the evidence placed on record, it reveals that vide Exhibits P9 and P10 recovery of yellow-stripped Kameej and towel (gamchha), which the accused was wearing around his neck, were recovered on the information given by the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act. All these articles were kept at concealed place, under a stone near wall of cremation ground. The recovery of article from concealed place will prove knowledge of the accused {AIR 1954 CrLJ 801}. 27. The fact that these articles were not put for identification will not adversely affect the recovery. The Investigation Officer PW13 Narayan Lal in his re-examination stated that the forwarding letter sent to the FSL is Ex.P12 and the report received from the FSL is Ex.P32 and packet marked 'C' Ex.P33 was signed by him from A to B place and affixed seal. The Voter ID Card is Article-1 and black-colour purse is Article-2, in which were there Rs. 80/-. The Article- 1 Voter ID Card and the black-colour purse Article-2, in which Rs. 80/- were there, were recovered from place near 'haudi' where the incident occurred. The Voter ID Card is Article-1 and black-colour purse is Article-2, in which were there Rs. 80/-. The Article- 1 Voter ID Card and the black-colour purse Article-2, in which Rs. 80/- were there, were recovered from place near 'haudi' where the incident occurred. The recovery of Voter ID Card (Article-1) shows presence of the accused-appellant at the place of incident, which was near 'haudi' and this evidence also finds corroboration from statement of other prosecution witnesses. Binja Ram, Kesra Ram and Taga Ram all these witnesses in their statements further clarified that the accused was seen near 'haudi' having body of Veena in his hands and on hearing their voices, he left the body near 'haudi' and ran away. 28. The evidence on record of the case establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused took deceased Veena from lawful guardianship, committed rape and then murdered her. In a criminal case, the standard of proof required is truth beyond reasonable doubts yet there is no absolute standard of 'reasonable doubt'. A reasonable doubt is fair, based on reasons and must grow out of evidence in the case. The concept of probability can not be expressed with mathematical precision as it involves subjective elements and it rests on common sense {State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkole alias Govind Singh & others, 2004 (13) SCC 308 }. A judicial evaluation of totality of evidence and not isolated scrutiny is necessary. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish {Inder Singh & Anr v. The State (Delhi Admn.), 1978 CrLJ 766 (SC)} . 29. On judicial evaluation of totality of evidence placed on record in the present case, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt it was the accused-appellant who is guilty of committing the offence under sections 302, 363 and 376(2)(f) IPC charged against him. This appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.