JUDGMENT Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.9.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, convicting the appellants for offence under sections 450, 302, 376(2)(g), 376(2)(d), 392, 397, 342, 316 and 323 IPC while acquitting them for the offence under section 307 IPC. They have been sentenced for each offence separately and, therein, life imprisonment has been inflicted for offence under sections 302, 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC. For other offences, different punishments have been inflicted. FACTS OF THE CASE - 2. On 11.6.2011, an FIR was lodged by complainant Pawan Kumar son of Devkaran stating that at around 4.00 PM two persons visited my in-laws house and caused murder of mother- in-law- Ramjeevani. The information about the incident was given to him by one Sandeep Kumar on telephone. He went to the spot and found mother-in-law in the pool of blood. His sister-in-law was tied in other room. 3. The police registered FIR for offence under section 302 IPC and initiated the investigation. After investigation, they found the appellants involved in the crime not only for offence under section 302/34 IPC but for offence under sections 376(2)(g), 450, 342, 307, 392 and 397 IPC hence charge sheet was filed. The court below then heard the matter for framing of charges and framed it for the offence under sections 450, 302, 376(2)(g), 392, 397, 307 and 342 IPC vide order dated 29.2.2012. The charge was then added vide order dated 3.4.2012 for offence under section 376(2)(d) and 316 IPC. 4. The prosecution produced 22 witnesses and 85 documents to prove the case. The statement of the accused appellants was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The trial court framed five issues for adjudication and finding proof of the charges for all the offences other than for offence under section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS - 5. It is stated by learned counsel for accused appellants that appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. The aforesaid would come out from the statement of PW-l-Kumari Ravina. She admitted that names of the accused were disclosed to her by others. She was asked to name the accused and, accordingly, made the statement against them. It is stated to be nothing but planted story to prove prosecution case otherwise nobody had seen the accused causing the offence. The aforesaid would come out from the statement of PW-l-Kumari Ravina. She admitted that names of the accused were disclosed to her by others. She was asked to name the accused and, accordingly, made the statement against them. It is stated to be nothing but planted story to prove prosecution case otherwise nobody had seen the accused causing the offence. On the aforesaid ground itself, appellants deserve to be acquitted of the offence. 6. Further reference of statement of PW-20-Prahlad Rai Jangid has been given. The said witness, in his cross examination, admitted his signatures on the documents as written by the police. He further admitted that the signatures were given by him on the papers as and when required. Learned trial court yet relied his statement to convict the appellants for the offence. 7. It is also stated that no motive or intention has come so as to consider it to be a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The knife, said to have been used in the crime, was not brought by the accused but it was available in the kitchen. The recovery of which is doubtful. In any case, appellants had no motive or intention to cause offence, rather, as per statement of PW-1-Kumari Ravina, they were entertained by the deceased by offering tea and PW-1 went to get cigarette for them. 8. The facts aforesaid are enough to show that no motive or intention could be brought by the prosecution to treat it to be case of offence under section 302 IPC. 9. It is further stated that no evidence could be led by the prosecution to prove the case under section 376(2)(g) and 376(2) (d) IPC. The offence has been held proved on probabilities thus conviction for offence under sections 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC is also illegal. The prayer is thus to acquit the appellants with acceptance of the appeal. ARGUMENTS OF THE SIDE OPPOSITE- 10. Learned PP has opposed the appeal. He submits that prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt for all the offences which include offence under section 307 IPC. The statement of PW-1 - Kumari Ravina has been corroborated by other witnesses and found proved by the material produced in support thereof. 11. ARGUMENTS OF THE SIDE OPPOSITE- 10. Learned PP has opposed the appeal. He submits that prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt for all the offences which include offence under section 307 IPC. The statement of PW-1 - Kumari Ravina has been corroborated by other witnesses and found proved by the material produced in support thereof. 11. It is a case where knife has been used for causing the offence and it was recovered at the instance of the appellants under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery of blood stained knife was at the instance of the appellants. The FSL report had confirmed human blood and group on the knife. The appellants had used the knife for causing the offence and repeated blows were given to the deceased which is confirmed by the post mortem report. The blood stained clothes of the accused appellants were also recovered apart from articles looted by them. In view of the above, learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Hence, no interference in the order passed by the trial court may be made. FINDING OF THE COURT - 12. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 13. After lodging the FIR, investigation was made by the police followed by charge sheet. The trial court framed charges and, two additional charges were framed at the subsequent stage. In the trial, prosecution produced 22 witnesses and 85 documents. 14. PW-1-Kumari Ravina is the eye-witness of the incident. She had categorically stated that the offence was caused by the accused appellants. They had given knife blow to the deceased repeatedly. Ravina was tied up by the accused in another room forcibly. 15. PW-20-Prahlad Rai Jangid corroborated the story given by PW-1-Ravina, who received four injuries in the incident. It otherwise proved the presence of PW-1 Ravina at the place of incident and the story that she was tied by the accused appellants in another room forcibly. PW-7-Anita has corroborated the statement of PW-1-Ravina. 16. The cross examination of Ravina has been referred by learned counsel for the accused appellants so as to term her as a tutored witness ignoring corroborative evidence to support her version. The location of the accused appellants was found at the place of occurrence. It was based on cell phone used by the accused appellants. 16. The cross examination of Ravina has been referred by learned counsel for the accused appellants so as to term her as a tutored witness ignoring corroborative evidence to support her version. The location of the accused appellants was found at the place of occurrence. It was based on cell phone used by the accused appellants. The call details were produced as Ex.P-57 to Ex.P.62 showing location of the appellants at Navalgarh thus trial court rightly believed on the statement of Ravina which was further corroborated by the post mortem report at Ex.P.-19. 17. The deceased- Ramjeevani had received many injuries out of which five were incised wounds. PW-8-Dr Suresh Kumar had stated about the injuries by a sharp edged weapon. It corroborated use of knife for causing the occurrence. The post mortem report confirms excessive bleeding out of the injuries which were sufficient to cause death. 18. PW-4-Sandeep Jangid also corroborated the statement of PW-1 and PW-7. He stated that both the accused came at the place of occurrence in a silver color Alto car. The knife used for causing the occurrence was recovered from Alto car (Ex.P.26). The car used by the accused appellants was found blood stained driver seat and the covers. The blood was existing even on the pillow for the driver's support. The side seat of the driver was also having blood and, accordingly, they were recovered and sent for FSL report. Blood stained pant and shirt of the accused were also recovered at their instance and were sent for FSL report. The recovery of the knife so as the pant/shirt was at the instance of the appellants. The blood group "B" was found in the FSL report which was matching to the blood group of the deceased and is coming out from the FSL report (Ex.P-26). The recovery of blood stained seat covers, pant and shirt at the instance of the appellants and FSL report confirming the blood group is a corroborative evidence to support the prosecution case. 19. The police further recovered gold and silver ornaments apart from many other articles from the appellants pursuant to section 27 of the Evidence Act. Ex.P-54 was prepared on recovery of silver and gold articles. The but of the knife was recovered from the pant of the accused and it was again blood stained and confirmed in the FSL report. 19. The police further recovered gold and silver ornaments apart from many other articles from the appellants pursuant to section 27 of the Evidence Act. Ex.P-54 was prepared on recovery of silver and gold articles. The but of the knife was recovered from the pant of the accused and it was again blood stained and confirmed in the FSL report. The facts aforesaid were sufficient to show that accused appellants looted gold and silver ornaments and caused murder of the deceased-Ramjeevani by giving repeated blows through sharp edged knife. 20. PW-16-Rajpal Singh has identified the articles so recovered from the accused appellants thus based on the evidence produced before the trial court, it had rightly come to the conclusion about commission of offence by the appellants under section 302 IPC. It is apart from the offence of loot. The motive to cause offence is also coming out. 21. The prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on the cross examination of PW-1-Ravina, who said to have disclosed the names of the accused appellants at the instance of others. Sufficient evidence exist to prove the involvement of the appellants in the crime, which has been discussed above. 22. The prosecution successfully produced corroborative evidence not only to prove presence of the accused appellants at the time of occurrence but their involvement by recovery of knife used for the occurrence apart from blood stained clothes and covers of the car used by them. The eye witness (PW-1-Ravina) had given evidence supported by other witnesses thus we do not find any illegality in the conclusions drawn by the trial court. 23. So far as offence under sections 376(2)(g) and 376(2) (d) IPC is concerned, post mortem report (Ex.P-19) has proved the aforesaid. Dr Suresh Kumar (PW-8) had given description of the body and Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-18 are the photographs of deceased - Ramjeevani and the foetus. The foetus also died due to murder of Ramjeevani though it had developed, which is coming out from the photographs. The foetus was of five months with 24 cm length. The trial court found despite knowing about pregnancy of the deceased-Ramjeevani, accused appellants committed rape on her. PW-4-Sandeep Jangid made statement about commission of offence under section 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC. The police had recovered underwear of the deceased which was lying on the bed. It was recovered through Ex.P-44. The undergarment was blood stained. The trial court found despite knowing about pregnancy of the deceased-Ramjeevani, accused appellants committed rape on her. PW-4-Sandeep Jangid made statement about commission of offence under section 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC. The police had recovered underwear of the deceased which was lying on the bed. It was recovered through Ex.P-44. The undergarment was blood stained. It was sent for FSL report though it has not been received, however, photographs Ex.P-3, 4, 8, 14 and 15 were exhibited. It was showing that 'saree' was taken out from the body. Injuries were found sufficient to prove sign of struggle by the deceased during commission of rape. In view of the above, learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was subjected to the offence under section 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for appellants. 24. In the result, criminal appeal is dismissed finding no error in the order passed by learned trial court convicting the appellants for the offence under sections 450, 302, 376(2)(g), 376(2)(d), 392, 397, 342, 316 and 323 IPC.