JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. These Criminal Appeals under section 374 CrPC has been preferred against order dated 18.06.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh Camp Nohar in Cr. Sessions Case No.12/2010 (11/2010) pertaining to FIR No.197/2010 registered at Police Station, Nohar, for offence under section 302 in the alternative 302/34 and section 341/34 IPC, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: Offence under section 302/34 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment Offence under section 341/34 IPC one month's simple imprisonment 2. Briefly stated, on 30.04.2010 a written report was submitted by Balveer Singh before SHO, Police Station Nohar, stating that his elder brother Sadul Singh was residing in his own house in Ward No.1 Dhani Sikhan. On 29.04.2010, he went for supplying milk in Nanda Colony at about 8:00PM. When he was returning back to his home, unknown persons strangulated him and cause his death near the outer signal of Railway line. He was informed early in the morning that dead body of Sardul Singh is lying at outer signal. 3. The SHO Police Station Nohar sent this report to the Police Station for registering FIR. One Constable Rai Singh went to the Police Station with this report and FIR No.197/2010 was registered at about 9:10AM on 30.04.2010. During investigation, the Investigation Officer prepared site-plans Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A and other memos - Ex.P4 Panchnama of dead body, Ex.P5 recovery memo of blood-smeared soil at the site, Ex.P6 recovery of 3 teeth from the site, Ex.P7 recovery of three Steel containers ('Burni'), Ex.P8 recovery of one 'safa' (turban) which was found wrapped around neck of deceased Sardul Singh, Ex.P9 recovery of bloodstained clothes of deceased Sardul Singh, Ex.P11 recovery of bunch of keys and one Identity Card of deceased Sardul Singh from accused Chhotu Ram, Ex.P12 recovery of blood-stained clothes from accused Sanjay Kumar and prepared map of recovery spots Exs.P14 & P14A. Body of the deceased was sent for autopsy. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against Chhotu Ram, Sanjay and Ram Kumar. Accused Ram Kumar being minor, a separate regular Cr. Case No.30/2010 was registered against him before Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh. Body of the deceased was sent for autopsy. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against Chhotu Ram, Sanjay and Ram Kumar. Accused Ram Kumar being minor, a separate regular Cr. Case No.30/2010 was registered against him before Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh. In that case, after trial, juvenile Ram Kumar was acquitted of the charge of offence under sections 341, 302/34 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 27.01.2014. 5. During trial against accused-appellants Chhotu Ram and Sanjay Kumar, on behalf of the prosecution 9 witnesses were examined and documents Exhibits P1 to P39A were exhibited. Accused Chhotu Ram and Sanjay were examined under section 313 CrPC. Both the accused pleaded guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Sanjay stated that he never went to the house of Hardutt in 'jagran' nor does he know Hardutt and Hardutt has falsely implicated him. Both the accused did choose to examine any witness in their defence. 6. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment under appeal dated 18.06.2011 whereby accused-appellants have been held guilty for offence under sections 302/34 and 341/34 IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred these appeals on various grounds. It was contended that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the appellant Chhotu Ram was tenant of deceased Sardul Singh, he has no enmity with the deceased and there is no motive for him to kill Sardul Singh. The Investigation Officer prepared site plan at 8:40AM while the FIR was registered at 9:10AM, hence, the investigation was started before lodging of the FIR. No motive has been shown in this case. Further, there is no last-seen evidence nor any extra-judicial confession is brought on record in this case. The learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the circumstances and convicted the accused-appellants illegally. 8. It was also contended that recovered articles were sealed at the time of deposit in Malkhana, which is proved by testimony of PW3 and PW4. The Malkhana in-charge clearly stated in his statement under section 161 CrPC that the articles deposited by the SHO were sealed, hence, recovery articles were genuine and recovery witnesses did disclose in their statement before the trial court regarding recoveries being made before them. The Malkhana in-charge clearly stated in his statement under section 161 CrPC that the articles deposited by the SHO were sealed, hence, recovery articles were genuine and recovery witnesses did disclose in their statement before the trial court regarding recoveries being made before them. Hence, recovery is proved in this case and no case is made out against the appellants because except recovery, there is a single evidence against accused-appellants. Hence, the appellants are liable to be set at liberty. 9. It was also contended that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons by Balveer Singh, who is younger brother of the deceased. He stated before the trial court that some transaction had taken place between accused-appellant Chhotu Ram and the deceased, Sardul Singh had Rs. 50,000/- in cash so Chhotu Ram wanted to grab & snatch those Rs. 50,000/- and hence, for snatching this money, Chhotu Ram killed him. This statement of Balveer Singh was totally baseless and it can be said that any normal human being can do such type of act, more so while he admitted that the appellant Chhotu Ram paid continuously the interest and rent on monthly basis. Thus, the evidence of PW1 Balveer Singh can be believed. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellants and contended that deceased Sardul Singh was unmarried and residing in his house alone. The accused-appellant Chhotu Ram was residing in one of his houses as tenant and deceased Sardul Singh had also given Rupees One Lac on loan to Chhotu Ram and Chhotu Ram was paying interest on the loan amount to him. Accused-appellant has admitted that he has given cheques for the payment. The deceased insisted on one time, full & final payment but the accused-appellant pressed to return the loan amount in instalments. Balveer Singh in his evidence has also stated that his brother was having Rs. 50,000/- in cash, which he received by selling his share of land in the village. The accused has motive to obtain cash and to get rid of his loan liability, therefore, motive for causing death of Sardul Singh is manifestly clear. 11. Balveer Singh in his evidence has also stated that his brother was having Rs. 50,000/- in cash, which he received by selling his share of land in the village. The accused has motive to obtain cash and to get rid of his loan liability, therefore, motive for causing death of Sardul Singh is manifestly clear. 11. So far as question of involvement of some other person in the commission of the crime is concerned, PW3 Hardutt further told in his evidence that on the day of 'jagran' he saw Chhotu Ram with two other persons and Chhotu Ram on asking has given names of those two persons as Sanjay @ Sanju and Shetty (Ram Kumar). On the day of the occurrence, all these three persons were seen together by PW3 and he has identified the accused persons in the court. 12. So far as investigation before registering of FIR is concerned, it was contended by the prosecution that some person informed on telephone and such information was recorded as Ex.P1, in which it was mentioned that Dinesh Dixit has informed on phone and on that information, Police reached at the site. After receipt of report from the complainant, investigation started. It can be said that the investigation was started before registration of FIR. 13. It was also contended by the prosecution that blood stains were found on clothes of accused Sanjay Kumar and his bloodstained clothes were recovered from the house of accused Chhotu Ram and there is no explanation regarding recovery of bloodstained clothes of Sanjay Kumar from house of Chhotu Ram. The accused-appellant Sanjay has also given any explanation how blood was found on his clothes and how his clothes were found in the house of accused Chhotu Ram. 14. The Identity Card of the deceased was also found from Chhotu Ram and he has also given any explanation as to possession of this Identity Card. The bunch of keys were also found with him, although there was no matching of keys but the accused-appellant did give any explanation regarding possession of the keys. 15. It was further contended that it is true that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons but the accused persons were arrested next day of the occurrence. The bunch of keys were also found with him, although there was no matching of keys but the accused-appellant did give any explanation regarding possession of the keys. 15. It was further contended that it is true that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons but the accused persons were arrested next day of the occurrence. It was also contended by the prosecution that so far as question of keeping keys with the accused is concerned, accused could get opportunity to open house of deceased Sardul Singh because he was arrested next day of the occurrence. The accused were seen together by PW3 Hardutt before the date of the occurrence and also on the day of the occurrence. So far as recoveries are concerned, witness PW5 Surajbhan was cross-examined on this point by the counsel for accused-appellants. The Identity Card, bunch of keys and bloodstained clothes were recovered and the circumstances indicate commission of the offence by the accused-appellants. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the chain of circumstances, from which the inference of guilt has been drawn by the trial judge, stand cogently and firmly established and are sufficient to draw a conclusion that within all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused-appellants and none else. 17. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and re-appreciated the evidence on record in its entirety objectively. 18. Indisputably, entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, following triad test must be meted out: (i) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt; (ii) that the circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him. {vide Mahmood v. State of UP: AIR 1976 SC 69 } 19. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1984 SC 1622 held that in a case where there is no eye-witness and the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence then following conditions are required to be fulfilled before the case can be said to be fully established: "1. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1984 SC 1622 held that in a case where there is no eye-witness and the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence then following conditions are required to be fulfilled before the case can be said to be fully established: "1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti." 21. In Ramreddy Rajshekhanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh: 2006 (3) Supreme 175 , the Apex Court held as under: "26. It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence." 22. In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab : AIR 1952 SC 354 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence answers the questions, essential to the proof of the offence only vaguely and indefinitely and is incompatible with the theory of innocence of the accused, there is no evidence on which the accused can be found guilty. 23. 23. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 1957 SC 637 , the Apex Court observed: "12. It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul coldblooded and cruel murder like the present should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted." 24. In Ashish Batham v. State of MP: (2002) 7 SCC 317 , their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that mere suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be take the place of legal proof. It was observed as under: "Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between 'conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record." 25. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, we have to adjudge as to whether the circumstances on which the prosecution has relied, are established by clear and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt and whether the cumulative effect of the circumstances said to be proved exclude every other hypothesis save the one that the appellants are guilty of the charge. 26. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, we have to adjudge as to whether the circumstances on which the prosecution has relied, are established by clear and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt and whether the cumulative effect of the circumstances said to be proved exclude every other hypothesis save the one that the appellants are guilty of the charge. 26. In the present case, PW6 Dr Jitendra Soni, who was member of the Medical Board, deposed in his statement about injuries found on the body of deceased Sardul Singh as follows: 1. Abrasion 4 in number, size 2x2 centimeter approx, present near left elbow 2. Abrasion 2x1 cms, on right shoulder 3. Multiple small abrasions near left elbow 4. Ligature mark present around neck, 3x5 cms in width, with knot in middle on front side. 27. In the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation, which is antemortem in nature. In the cross-examination, it was admitted that after breaking of thyroid bone due to pressure, wind-pipe becomes closed. In cases of death due to asphyxia, it is possible that eyes of the deceased remain open and his tongue may come out, left chamber of his heart may remain empty and right chamber may become clogged with blood. 28. PW6 Dr Jitendra Soni in his statement further stated that it is wrong to say that the cause of death of deceased Sardul Singh was asphyxia or strangulation. From the statement of PW6 and postmortem report, it is specifically clear that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. 29. In the present case, PW1 Balveer Singh, who is brother of deceased Sardul Singh, stated that his brother Sardul Singh was living in Ward No.1 Sikhon-ki-Dhani Mogra, who was unmarried and living alone. He was serving in Goshala and also keeps one cow. He was having two houses in Sikhon Ki Dhani. He purchased the house from Hardeo Singh and rented that house to Chhotu Ram, who was occupying the house as tenant. Deceased Sardul Singh was having his another house nearby, in which he was living himself. In that house Sardul Singh was keeping cow and used to sell milk in the nearby Nanda colony. On the fateful day of 19.04.2010, while he was going to supply milk in Nanda colony, in the way he was murdered. 30. Deceased Sardul Singh was having his another house nearby, in which he was living himself. In that house Sardul Singh was keeping cow and used to sell milk in the nearby Nanda colony. On the fateful day of 19.04.2010, while he was going to supply milk in Nanda colony, in the way he was murdered. 30. PW1 Balveer Singh further stated that on 30.04.2010 in the morning he received information that dead body of Sardul Singh was lying near Railway line. He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. Police had reached at the scene of the occurrence before him. He gave written report Ex.P1, Police recovered bloodsmeared soil vide Ex.P5, blood-stained Safa (turban) vide Ex.P8, blood-stained clothes of deceased Sardul Singh and prepared other recovery memos Exhibits P11, P12, P14 & P14A. 31. PW2 Narendra in his statement told that he was working as Pujari in the temple situated in Goshala of Dhani Sikhan and Chhotu Ram was living in the house of Sardul Singh on rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. Chhotu Ram has also obtained loan of rupees One Lac from Sardul Singh, at the interest of 2 percent per month. He further stated that two months before the incident, Sardul Singh fell ill and at that time he was residing at the house of Balveer Singh. During that period, this witness (Narendra) received interest amount from Chhotu Ram and delivered to Sardul Singh at the house of Balveer Singh. PW2 Narendra also stated that Chhotu Ram has stated that he will pay the loan amount in four installments and this fact may be brought to knowledge of Sardul Singh. He informed Sardul Singh about this message of Chhotu Ram, thereupon Sardul Singh told that he will talk to him after he gets well. PW2 Narendra also stated that he has heard that there was dispute between Sardul Singh and Chhotu Ram with respect to payment of money. In the crossexamination, this witness stated that it is true that Chhotu Ram has paid one cheque in respect of loan of rupees One Lac to Sardul Singh. 32. PW3 Hardutt in his statement stated that two years ago Chhotu Ram was running a hostel in the colony and in that connection he needed money. There was dispute between Sardul Singh and Chhotu Ram with respect to payment of money. 32. PW3 Hardutt in his statement stated that two years ago Chhotu Ram was running a hostel in the colony and in that connection he needed money. There was dispute between Sardul Singh and Chhotu Ram with respect to payment of money. He further stated that Sardul Singh had loaned money to Chhotu Ram on interest. On 25.04.2010 Chhotu Ram came to his residence with two other boys in 'jagran'. On suspicion he asked Chhotu Ram about those two persons then Chhotu Ram told that one of them is Sanju and the other person was named as Shetty (Ram Kumar). After completion of Hanuman Chalisa during 'jagran', Chhotu Ram and those two boys went together and 2-3 days thereafter when Hardutt was watching TV with doors of his house open, at that time he again saw Chhotu Ram with those two boys going in the lane towards temple, the temple is situated inside Goshala. In the morning, he heard about dead body of Sardul Singh. 33. This witness PW3 Hardutt identified one of two boys as Sanju, who was present in the court. He also stated that bunch of keys and one Identity Card were recovered from accused Chhotu Ram vide Ex.P11 before him. The Identity Card was belonging to deceased Sardul Singh. On the information of accused Sanju, Police recovered blood-stained clothes of Sanjay from house of Chhotu Ram vide Ex.P12 and Police prepared recovery memos Exhibits P11, 12, 14 and 14A before him. This witness further stated that there was dispute between Chhotu Ram and Sardul Singh with regard to payment of money. 34. PW4 Guraj Singh, who is Investigation Officer in this case, prepared memos Exhibits P2, P3, P5, P6 & P7 for recovery of blood-smeared soil, 3 teeth, three steel Bharni (containers) from the site of occurrence. This witness stated that accused Ram Kumar Shetty verified the place of the incident and on the information of Chhotu Ram, Police recovered a bunch of keys, one Identity Card before him. From the same house, blood-stained clothes of Sanjay Kumar were also recovered on the information given by accused Sanjay Kumar and memo of recovery Ex.P12 was prepared before him and he admitted his signature on the recovery memo. 35. From the same house, blood-stained clothes of Sanjay Kumar were also recovered on the information given by accused Sanjay Kumar and memo of recovery Ex.P12 was prepared before him and he admitted his signature on the recovery memo. 35. PW5 Surajbhan stated in his statement that he received sealed packets given by SHO Ranveer Singh, entry of receipt of those sealed packets was made in the Malkhana Register on 30.04.2010. On 06.05.2010, sealed packets were handed over to Constable Ram Singh and entry thereof was made by him in the Malkhana Register. Samples were deposited in the FSL by Constable Ram Singh and receipt was submitted by him. No question was put in the cross-examination to PW5 Surajbhan to suggest that the packets were sealed deposited in the Malkhana in sealed condition. PW7 Ranveer Singh, who was SHO of Police Station, also stated in his statement that the recovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana in sealed condition and thereafter sent to the FSL. Constable Ram Singh in his evidence stated that seals on the packets were intact and he deposited the same in FSL. In Exhibit P32 FSL report also, fact of seals on packets was mentioned. In view of this, it can be said that the recovered articles sent to the FSL were properly sealed. 36. From the evidence placed on record, it is clear that deceased Sardul Singh was unmarried, he was having one cow and selling milk in the nearby colony. The deceased Sardul had given rupees One Lac on loan to accused Chhotu Ram and the accused Chhotu Ram was tenant of deceased Sardul Singh as per statement of PW1 Balveer and PW2 Narendra. Accused Chhotu Ram was having full knowledge regarding activities of Sardul Singh, about time of his going out and coming back after selling milk as also about his other activities. The accused Chhotu Ram was also having opportunity for committing the crime. The deceased Sardul Singh had also received money in cash from sale of land in the village, as per statement of his brother PW1 Balveer. PW2 Narendra and PW3 Hardutt have also deposed that there was dispute between Chhotu Ram and Sardul Singh regarding payment of money. The accused Chhotu Ram was also having opportunity for committing the crime. The deceased Sardul Singh had also received money in cash from sale of land in the village, as per statement of his brother PW1 Balveer. PW2 Narendra and PW3 Hardutt have also deposed that there was dispute between Chhotu Ram and Sardul Singh regarding payment of money. Sardul Singh was demanding one-time re-payment of the loan amount while Chhotu Ram was insisting on payment in instalments and Chhotu Ram was ready to repay in the manner Sardul Singh was insisting. This was the reason of dispute between them. 37. For this purpose, accused Chhotu Ram made up a plan and called aforesaid two persons at his residence. On 25.04.2010, on the day of 'jagran', Chhotu Ram with aforesaid two boys went to house of Hardutt (PW3). Hardutt saw those unknown persons and asked Chhotu Ram about them. On asking Chhotu Ram gave names of those persons and one of them was identified by Hardutt as accused Sanjay Kumar. One day before the occurrence, PW3 Hardutt had seen Chhotu Ram and those two boys when they were going towards temple and in the morning he heard about dead body of Sardul Singh. The Identity Card and the bunch of keys of deceased Sardul Singh were also recovered from Chhotu Ram on his information. Blood-stained clothes of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju were recovered, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, on information by Sanjay Kumar, from the house of Chhotu Ram. No explanation was given by accused Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju as to blood stains found on his clothes, which were recovered from house of Chhotu Ram. Although the keys were matched but blood, which was found on his shirt matched with the blood-smeared soil and 'Safa' of deceased Sardul Singh. 38. So far as contention of accused-appellants that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, it is true that the FIR was registered against unknown persons but the accused persons were arrested on the next day of the occurrence. In the FIR, it was mentioned that information was received and apprehension of causing death by strangulation by unknown persons was mentioned. The FIR is encyclopedia about commission of the offence and it is required that each & everything should be mentioned. In the FIR, it was mentioned that information was received and apprehension of causing death by strangulation by unknown persons was mentioned. The FIR is encyclopedia about commission of the offence and it is required that each & everything should be mentioned. The purpose of an FIR is to record information about commission of crime and to set the machinery of law in motion. 39. So far as evidence of last-seen is concerned, in the present case there is no eye-witness but PW3 Hardutt in his evidence stated that he had seen accused Chhotu Ram with two other persons when they came to his house in 'jagran' and upon seeing unknown persons, he asked Chhotu Ram about identity of those unknown persons and Chhotu Ram gave name of one person as Sanju and other person as named as Shetty (Ram Kumar). Two days after the 'jagran', Chhotu Ram again saw that Chhotu Ram along with those two persons introduced by him during 'jagran' was going towards lane ('gali') going towards the temple situated in Goshala and on the next day morning, he heard about dead body of Sardul Singh found near Railway line. 40. So far as contention of accused-appellants that there was no matching of the bunch of keys, it is true that there was no matching of keys but Identity Card of deceased Sardul Singh was also recovered from house of accused Chhotu Ram and no explanation was given regarding how the Identity Card of deceased came in his possession. The blood-stained clothes of Sanjay Kumar were also recovered from house of Chhotu Ram, on the information given by Sanjay Kumar and the blood found on clothes of Sanjay matched with the blood found in blood-smeared soil collected from site of the occurrence. No explanation was given by accused Sanjay Kumar regarding blood found on his clothes. It was argued on behalf of appellants that why will the accused keep bunch of keys with him but it to be seen that the accused were arrested on the next day of the occurrence and that is how he did get any opportunity to hide the keys at any other place or to use the keys to open house of the deceased. This does adversely affect the prosecution story in view of other incriminating circumstances. 41. This does adversely affect the prosecution story in view of other incriminating circumstances. 41. There was sufficient evidence that there was dispute between accused Chhotu Ram and the deceased Sardul Singh and the witnesses PW2 Narendra and PW3 Hardutt both supported the prosecution story. It can not be assumed that the deceased Sardul Singh and accused Chhotu Ram were having good relation. 42. In this way, from the evidence placed on record, the prosecution was successful in linking all circumstantial evidence that commission of the crime must have been done by the accused persons. There is no ground for interference in the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in conviction and punishment of the accused appellants. Both the appeals filed by the appellants fail. The judgment under appeal is upheld. The appeals are dismissed.