JUDGMENT : Krishna Pratap Singh, J. This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement and order dated 24.7.1990 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas) Hamirpur in Special Case No. 117 of 1986 whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC, ten years RI under Section 394 IPC and two years' RI under Section 411 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. As appellant Kallu died during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal filed on his behalf abated vide order of this Court dated 19.5.2017. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.7.1986 at 11.00 AM, a written information was given by one Ram Prakash Nigam at the police station Maudaha to the effect that before his village Bhaista, in the Pawar rivulet (Nala), cadaver of an unidentified lay, which is stinking and is being eaten by dogs and vultures. At the same place remains of cadaver, which seems to be of a female also lay, which has already been eaten by dogs and vultures and its bones are scattered at places. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Constable-Muharrir Ram Sajivan entered the information in GD vide report No. 16 at 11.00 AM on 28.7.1986. Thereafter the investigation was taken up by PW-5, Ram Raj Singh, who rushed to the spot and prepared inquest on remains of both the cadavers (Exts Ka-3 and 6). Thereafter, the investigating officer after preparing necessary documents, handed over the remains of both the cadavers to Constables Dinesh Chandra and Hira Mani for post-mortem examination. 5. On 03.8.1986 PW-1 Ram Saran Singh came to police station along with some other persons, who, on the basis of clothes identified the cadavers to that of Karan Vir and Maina Devi. Thereafter, PW-1, Ram Saran Singh lodged a written report on the basis of which a case was registered at Case Crime No. 168 of 1986, under Sections 394/302 IPC, PS Maudaha, district Hamirpur against unknown persons. On 03.8.1986, the investigating officer recorded the statements of Ram Saran Singh, Ranveer Singh, Randhir Singh and thereafter proceeded to village Bhaista where he enquired from Ram Prakash Nigam, Jiva Lal etc. and recorded their statements and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-8). On 03.8.1986, the investigating officer recorded the statements of Ram Saran Singh, Ranveer Singh, Randhir Singh and thereafter proceeded to village Bhaista where he enquired from Ram Prakash Nigam, Jiva Lal etc. and recorded their statements and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-8). On 04.8.1986, the investigating officer recorded the statements of Abdul Hamid and Kallu in which they stated that on 23.7.1986 at about 7.30 PM, they saw accused-Jag Ram taking one boy and a girl along with some articles on his rickshaw. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Circle Officer along with police personnel and informant-Ram Saran went to village Sijnauda. On Tikri road, accused-Jag Ram met the police personnel. He was detained and upon enquiry initially, he paried, but later on he confessed to have killed both the deceased with the assistance of Kallu and told the police personnel that whatever articles were on the body of the deceased, they hid in haystack in the house of Kallu. Thereafter, investigating officer arrested Kallu, who also accepted that they hid the looted articles in the haystack in his house. Thereafter, Kallu took them to his house, took out bag from haystack and handed over the same to the investigating officer in the presence of the witnesses. Following articles were recovered from the house of Kallu: 1. One Transistor small size Sony brand 2. One Bichhua silver (weight 250 gms). 3. One pair anklet silver (weight 500 gms). 4. Necklace gold (two tolas) 5. One nose pin gold 6. Four toe ring silver 7. One wrist watch (Rico super time) 8. One wrist watch (Henry Sandoz) 6. After completing the investigation and making necessary formalities, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 302, 394, 411 and 376 IPC. 7. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions where case was registered as Special Case No. 117 of 1986. Learned Special Judge (DAA) Hamirpur framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 302/34, 376, 411, 394 IPC and 2-B, 10/12 of Dacoity Affected Areas Act, PS Maudaha, district Hamirpur to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. Learned Special Judge (DAA) Hamirpur framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 302/34, 376, 411, 394 IPC and 2-B, 10/12 of Dacoity Affected Areas Act, PS Maudaha, district Hamirpur to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, out of whom PW-1, Ram Saran Singh was the informant of the case, PW-2, Shiv Pal Singh and PW-6, Abdul Hamid were the witnesses of last seen, PW-3, Ghanshyam Singh and PW-4 Ram Singh were the witnesses of recovery, PW-5, Shri Ram Raj Singh was the investigating officer of the case and PW-7HC 134 Vishnu Ji Awasthi proved the GD. 9. PW-1, Ram Saran Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that deceased-Karan Vir Singh was his brother's son (nephew). He was married about one and a quarter year prior to the occurrence with deceased-Maina Devi. Family of informant is joint Hindu Family and informant-PW-1 is the Karta of that family. On 23.7.1986 both the deceased left for village Tikri. Deceased-Karan wore white stripe shirt, black pant and red underwear. He also had a watch on his wrist. Deceased-Maina Devi wore gold ear ring, gold nose pin, gold necklace, silver Bichuwa in waist, gold bangles and Payal, which the informant saw at the time when they were leaving for Tikri. Both the deceased were also carrying an old tin box and a raxin attachy, in which they kept certain jewellery and clothes. He further deposed that at 7.30 AM, they saw them off from bus at Majhgawa. On 01.8.1986, Randhir Singh, elder brother of deceased-Maina Devi came to this witness and enquired as to why he did not send deceased-Maina Devi, thereupon this witness told him that she had already gone on 23.7.1986. On being told by Randhir Singh that at village Bhaista two dead bodies were found, one of a man and another of a female, they became perturbed. On 02.8.1986, this witness along with others kept on searching for the deceased, but in vain. On 03.8.1986, when they reached police station Maudaha where police personnel showed them the clothes of the deceased, which were of both the deceased. On the basis of clothes, they have come to know that deceased-Karan Vir and Maina Devi have been killed. Thereafter, the informant lodged a written report at the police station Maudaha (Ext. Ka-1). On 03.8.1986, when they reached police station Maudaha where police personnel showed them the clothes of the deceased, which were of both the deceased. On the basis of clothes, they have come to know that deceased-Karan Vir and Maina Devi have been killed. Thereafter, the informant lodged a written report at the police station Maudaha (Ext. Ka-1). The informant also identified the clothes, which both the deceased wore on 23.7.1986. Thereafter, the informant identified the recovered items. He further deposed that recovery from the house of Kallu was made in his presence. 10. PW-2, Shiv Pal Singh, in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knew Devi Dayal and his family. Devi Dayal's daughter Maina Devi was married to Karan Vir Singh of Maudaha. On 23.7.1986, he hired a rickshaw for Maina Devi and Karan Vir Singh from Devendra crossing to Tikri for Rs. 20/. That rickshaw belonged to accused Jag Ram and he himself was pulling rickshaw. Deceased-Maina Devi was carrying a box with her. Accused-Jag Ram is resident of village Videshwar. He heard after 11-12 days that after looting the articles of Karan Vir Singh and Maina Devi, they have been killed. Thereafter, he went to the police station and told the police personnel about the incident. 11. PW-3, Ghanshyam Singh, in his examination-in chief deposed that he heard about the incident of killing Karan Vir Singh and Maina Devi. On 04.8.1986 when they were going to police station Maudaha, at village Sijnauda they saw that some police personnel were catching hold of accused Jag Ram, who confessed that they looted the articles, killed them, but they did not distribute the looted items and they hid the same in haystack in the house of Kallu and agreed to get the looted items recovered. When accused-Jag Ram was going with the police, accused Kallu was also seen coming from other side, who was also arrested by the police. This witness further deposed that accused handed over the looted items in his presence. 12. PW-4, Ram Singh, in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knew accused Jag Ram. About two years ago accused was arrested at 9.00 AM. After a while accused-Kallu was also arrested. In his presence, accused-Jag Ram confessed his guilt and told the police personnel that after killing, the items, which he looted is kept in the house of Kallu and the same were not distributed. About two years ago accused was arrested at 9.00 AM. After a while accused-Kallu was also arrested. In his presence, accused-Jag Ram confessed his guilt and told the police personnel that after killing, the items, which he looted is kept in the house of Kallu and the same were not distributed. After a short span, accused Kallu, who was coming from other side was also arrested. He further deposed that accused Jagram and Kallu handed over the looted articles to the police personnel in his presence. 13. PW-5, Ram Raj Singh is the investigating officer of the case, who conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet. His evidence in detail has already been discussed above. 14. PW-6, Abdul Hamid, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that about two and a quarter years ago at about 7.30 PM, while he was sitting outside his flour mills along with Kallu, he saw that accused-Jag Ram, who used to pull rickshaw, on his rickshaw two persons one female aged about 17-18 years and one male aged 20-22 years were sitting. They were also having one box and a attachy. He further deposed that he knew accused-Jag Ram, who used to come to his flour mill. On coming to know that two persons have been killed and their cadavers have been recovered, they told the police. 15. PW-7, Vishnu Ji Awasthi, who is the Head Muharrir at police station Maudaha in 1996 proved Ext. Ka-14 (Roznamcha). 16. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code, in which they denied the charges levelled against them and stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity and they produced one defence witness. 17. DW-1, Jiya lal in his evidence stated that accused-Kallu, Jag Ram and one Suraj had been arrested by the police on 02.8.1986 and they have falsely been implicated in this case showing their arrest on 04.8.1986. 18. However, learned Special Judge (DAA), Hamirpur after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 19. Heard Shri R.D. Yadav, learned Amicus and Shri A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case. 20. 18. However, learned Special Judge (DAA), Hamirpur after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 19. Heard Shri R.D. Yadav, learned Amicus and Shri A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case. 20. Learned amicus submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and no one has seen the accused-appellant taking away the deceased and committing the crime and that evidence of last seen witnesses namely PW-2, Shiv Pal Singh and PW-6 Abdul Hamid is neither reliable nor convincing. He further submits that recovery shown by the prosecution is doubtful and not admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Amicus also contended that earlie the appellant was falsely implicated by the police but was acquitted by this Court. He lastly submitted that PW-6 Abdul Hamid is a pocket witness of police. 21. In support of his contention learned Amicus relied upon the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court: 1. Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 (PC) 67 2. Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 2345 3. Nizam and another v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 (1) SCC 550 4. Mohd Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 367 5. State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2002 SC 620 6. Bharat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 1433 22. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution indicate that both the deceased were taken away by the accused-appellant-Jag Ram and subsequently murdered with the help of other co-accused Kallu. It is further submitted that cadavers were found in rivulet (Nala) and no one had seen the occurrence, therefore, it is not a case of eye witness account, but the prosecution has successfully brought on record the evidence of last seen against accused-appellant and the recovery of looted items at the instances of the appellant and, therefore, the charges of murders have been established beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 23. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. 23. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of circumstances. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It has been consistently laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the inference of the guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. 24. So far as contention of learned Amicus that it is a case circumstantial evidence and no one had seen the accused-appellant taking away the deceased and committing the crime and that evidence of last seen witnesses namely PW-2 and PW-6 are neither reliable nor convincing, it be noted that that PW-2 deposed that he knew Devi Dayal and his family. Devi Dayal's daughter Maina Devi was married to Karan Vir Singh of Maudaha. On 23.7.1986, he hired a rickshaw for Maina Devi and Karan Vir Singh from Devendra crossing to Tikri for Rs. 20/. That rickshaw belonged to accused Jag Ram and he himself was pulling it. Deceased-Maina Devi was carrying a box with her. Accused-Jag Ram is a resident of village Videshwar. He heard after 11-12 days that after looting the articles of Karan Vir Singh and Maina Devi, they had been killed. Thereafter, he went to the police station and informed the police personnel about the incident. He denied the suggestion that being a co-villagers, he falsely deposed against the appellant. PW-6, Abdul Hamid deposed that about two and a quarter years ago at about 7.30 PM, while he was sitting outside his flour mill along with Kallu, he saw accused-Jag Ram, a rickshaw, on his rickshaw puller with two persons one female aged about 17-18 years and one male aged 20-22 years were on his rickshaw. They were also having one box and a attache. He knew accused-Jag Ram, who used to come to his flour mill. They were also having one box and a attache. He knew accused-Jag Ram, who used to come to his flour mill. The evidence of both the witnesses, i.e. PW-2 and PW-6 is consistent so far as last seen evidence is concerned and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. 25. Next contention of the learned Amicus is that recovery of looted items is doubtful and not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is to be noted that recovery was effected from haystack from the house of accused-Kallu at the pointing out of both the accused-Kallu and Jagram in the presence of PW-1, the informant, PW-3 Ghanshyam Singh and PW-4, Ram Singh. PW-1 deposed that while he was going with the Circle Officer, in Sijnauda village, accused-Jagram met them, who upon enquiry confessed to have killed both the deceased with the help of Kallu and agreed to get the looted items recovered. He further deposed that while they were going, they saw accused-Kallu coming, who was also arrested by the police. On interrogation, initially, he paried, but later on he confessed looted items are with him and agreed to get them recovered. Thereafter, accused-Kallu took out a bag from the haystack from his house and handed over the same to the police (Exts Ka-10 to 17), in the presence of witnesses. PW-3 Ghanshyam Singh deposed that he had heard about the incident of killing Karan Vir Singh and Maina Devi. On 04.8.1986 while he was going to police station Maudaha, at village Sijnauda he saw that some police personnel had caught hold of accused Jag Ram, who confessed that they had looted the articles from the deceased and then killed them and had hidden the looted article in the haystack in the house of Kallu which both the accused agreed to get the looted items recovered. Both the accused handed over the looted articles to the police the presence of PW-3. PW-3 also identified the looted articles in the Court. The recovered items were recognized by PW-1, informant Ram Saran Singh, Ranveer Singh and Randheer Singh. 26. PW-4, Ram Singh deposed that accused-Jag Ram was arrested at 9.00 AM. After a while accused-Kallu was also arrested. In his presence, accused-Jag Ram confessed his guilt and told the police personnel that after killing, the items, which he looted were kept in the house of Kallu. 26. PW-4, Ram Singh deposed that accused-Jag Ram was arrested at 9.00 AM. After a while accused-Kallu was also arrested. In his presence, accused-Jag Ram confessed his guilt and told the police personnel that after killing, the items, which he looted were kept in the house of Kallu. After a short interval, accused Kallu, who was coming from the other side was also arrested. He further deposed that in his presence both the accused handed over the looted articles to the police, which were kept in a packet. It is apparent that both the witnesses, i.e. PW-3 and PW-4, were put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing adverse could be elicited to make their testimonies doubtful. Moreover, in his extra judicial statement appellant-Jagram confessed to have committed the crime in collusion with co-accused Kallu after both the deceased hired his rickshaw at Devendra crossing for Rs. 20/- and hid the looted articles, i.e. one Transistor small size sony brand, one Bichhua silver (weight 250 gms), one pair anklet silver (weight 500 gms), necklace gold (two tolas), one nose pin gold, four toe ring silver, one wrist watch (Rico super time) and one wrist watch (Henry Sandoz), which was recovered at his pointing out from the haystack from the house of co-accused Kallu. 27. In Pulukuri Kotayya (Supra), the Privy Council considered the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and observed" "It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that I will produce a knife concealed in the roof or my house does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added with which I stabbed 'A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant. 28. Jackaran Singh (Supra) was a case in which in the absence of signature or thumb impression of the accused on the disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that such statement shall be rendered unreliable. 29. Nizam and another (Supra) was a case in which there were many apparent lapses in the investigation and missing links, like non-recovery of stolen money; the weapon from which abrasions were caused; false case lodged by PW-2 alleging that he was being robbed by some other miscreants; non-identification of dead body and non-explanation as to how the deceased reached Maniya village and injuries on his internal organs (penis). 30. In Mohd. Abdul Hafeez (Supra) joint recoveries have not been made completely inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but the aforesaid law report only mentions as under: ".....it is obligatory upon the Investigating Officer to state and record who gave the information; when he is dealing with more than one accused, what words used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against the persons." 31. In State of Haryana (Supra) there were contradictions in the eye-witness account and medical evidence and that witness was interested. 32. Bharat (Supra) was a case in which there was neither proper and legal identification of the ornaments nor the recovery as a consequence of the statement of appellant. Moreover, evidence of police officer in that case was unreliable in view of ample material on record that the witnesses were signing at the instance of police officer on the dotted lines. 33. Moreover, evidence of police officer in that case was unreliable in view of ample material on record that the witnesses were signing at the instance of police officer on the dotted lines. 33. In Sewa Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 1843 , two accused persons gave separate disclosure statements that they could point out the place where the dead body was buried and then jointly led the police party to the place and got the dead body recovered, the joint recovery at the pointing out of the two accused was held admissible for upholding the conviction of the accused. 34. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is open or accessible to others. It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating articles was made from a place which is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried in the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hide it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence, the crucial question is sought whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others". 35. In the facts of the present case, we find that the looted articles were got recovered on pointing out of the accused from a haystack, which was kept on the first floor of the house of co-accused Kallu, which was only in the knowledge of both the accused. Moreover, both the accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C , 1973 have only made a plain denial without explaining incriminating circumstances put to them. Moreover, both the accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C , 1973 have only made a plain denial without explaining incriminating circumstances put to them. No explanation had been offered by either of the two accused for their possession of the aforesaid ornaments and articles. This is not a case where any other reasonable view other than the guilt of the accused is possible on the basis of evidence on record. Unexplained possession of ornaments and articles of the deceased persons will be presumptive evidence against the accused and is very strong circumstance in the chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution. Thus, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant have no application on the facts of the present case. 36. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu AIR 2000 SC 1691 held thus: " At the first blush, the approach of the High Court may appear to be sound. But when we considered the answer which A-2 Guruji had given to the question put to him under Section 313 of the Code regarding the said circumstance, he simply denied even the recovery of the "Kalash" as stated by PW-44, the investigating officer. When we know that there was blood on the pitcher, it is for A-2 Guruji to explain how it was there. But when he denied even the seizure of the pitcher, such a denial in this context, is not inconsequential." 37. The contention of learned Amicus that earlier also the appellant was falsely implicated by the police in case crime No. 23 of 1986, under Sections 302, 394, 201 and 411 IPC, Police Station Maudaha, district Hamirpur in which he was acquitted by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagram and another v. State of UP, reported in 2017(2) ACR 2059. 38. In the aforesaid case, the Court noticed that inquest and post-mortem were conducted on the body of deceased as unknown, whereas PW-1, Asha Devi claimed that she identified the dead body to that of her husband Rajjan Lal. Further in that case prosecution case was that accused Jagram in his confessional statement stated that he strangulated the deceased to death by 'Gamchha' but no external injury was found by the doctor and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. Moreover, in that case only one transistor, one wrist watch and Rs. Further in that case prosecution case was that accused Jagram in his confessional statement stated that he strangulated the deceased to death by 'Gamchha' but no external injury was found by the doctor and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. Moreover, in that case only one transistor, one wrist watch and Rs. 65/- was looted out of which transistor was recovered from co-accused Patak Singh. Keeping in view the aforesaid discrepancies, the Court acquitted the accused in that case. 39. However, in the instant case, huge looted articles, i.e. one Transistor small size Sony brand, one Bichhua silver (weight 250 gms), one pair anklet silver (weight 500 gms), necklace gold (two tolas), one nose pin gold, four toe ring silver, one wrist watch (Rico super time) and one wrist watch (Henry Sandoz), were recovered on the pointing out appellant-Jag Ram from the haystack from the house of co-accused Kallu in the presence of witnesses, i.e. PW-1, Ram Saran Singh and PW-3 Ghanshyam Singh. Moreover, the accused also confessed before the witnesses to have killed both the deceased. 40. Last contention of learned Amicus is that PW-6, Abdul Hamid is a pocket witness of police. PW-6, Abdul Hamid in his cross-examination specifically stated that he gave his evidence in cases which occurred in his presence and that he was witness in 4- 5 cases and not in 10-15 cases as alleged by the prosecution. Further the defence has not come out with a specific case that in which cases PW-6, Abdul Hamid had given his evidence. In the absence of any cogent evidence in this regard, it cannot be said that PW-6, Abdul Hamid was a pocket witness of the police. 41. Jiya Lal DW-1 deposed that accused was apprehended by police on 2.8.1986 and in this regard he had sent a telegram to the higher authorities on 3.8.1986, but there is nothing on record to show that he had sent any telegram to the higher officers. He admitted that co-accused Kallu (since dead) was his 'Sala' (brother-in-law). It appears that he had given such statement only to save the accused. He admitted that co-accused Kallu (since dead) was his 'Sala' (brother-in-law). It appears that he had given such statement only to save the accused. The Court is fully aware that standard of proof to establish a defence plea is not same as that which rests upon the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused, but there must be some material on record to support the defence and probabilize its case. Statement of DW-1 does not inspire confidence. Plea of accused that he has been falsely implicated is not supported by specifying the cause of enmity. On close scrutiny of evidence of DW-1, we find him to be untruthful and unreliable. 42. In view of what has been indicated herein above, we are of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 43. The appellant Jagram is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to them by the learned Trial Court. 44. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months. 45. Registrar General is directed to ensure a payment of Rs. 15,000/- to Shri R.D. Yadav, learned amicus for services rendered.