JUDGMENT Per : Alok Kumar Verma, J. These Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.03.2017 passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No.147 of 2011, State vs. Akhil Kumar Agarwal and two others, whereby sentencing appellant/accused Akhil Kumar Agarwal, life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 364A IPC with a fine of Rs.15,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default for further six months, sentencing appellants/accused Vimal Kumar Sharma and Javed life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 364A IPC read with Section 120B IPC with a fine of Rs.15,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default for further six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2010 at 21.30 p.m., the informant Rakesh Gupta, PW-1, lodged a First Information Report, Ext.Ka.4, at Police Station, Kashipur against unknown persons through his Tehrir, Ext.Ka.1, stating that his son Sachin Gupta, was missing since Wednesday i.e. from 24.11.2010 evening about 04.00 p.m. On that very day i.e. 24.11.2010 at about 06.00 p.m., when the informant was in Ramnagar, he received a ransom call from the mobile number of his son Sachin Gupta. He was informed by the caller that his son Sachin Gupta is in their custody and also told the informant to wait for their next call. This call was received by the informant on his mobile phone. The appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal was a close friend of Sachin Gupta and therefore, he was informed regarding the incident by the informant. On 24.11.2010, the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal called Sachin Gupta on his mobile phone from his (Akhil Kumar Agarwal) another mobile phone No. i.e. 9458222568 and asked him to come to the Government Hospital, Kashipur. On the said day, the appellant-Vimal Sharma and appellant-Javed were also called to come to the Government Hospital, Kashipur by the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal from his mobile number. The deceased Sachin Gupta reached at Government Hospital, Kashipur on his motorcycle. On the said day, the appellant-Vimal Sharma and appellant-Javed were also called to come to the Government Hospital, Kashipur by the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal from his mobile number. The deceased Sachin Gupta reached at Government Hospital, Kashipur on his motorcycle. On that very day, at about 03.00 p.m. the appellant-Vimal Sharma and appellant Javed accompanied Sachin Gupta went to Ramnagar in a Tavera car of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma, which was driven by Phool Hasan, DW2, from the Government Hospital, Kashipur and stayed there at Hotel Taj, Corbett Ramnagar. The deceased Sachin Gupta was last seen on 24.11.2010 with the appellant Vimal Sharma and appellant Javed by the prosecution witness- Deepak Arora-PW-4. The informant inquired from the appellant-accused-Akhil Kumar Agarwal about the where about of his son (Sachin Gupta) on which Akhil Kumar Agarwal replied that in case Sachin has been abducted then it is wise to pay the ransom amount and rescue Sachin. When the informant and appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal were searching for the informant's son in the night of 24.11.2010, the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal pointed out to the informant a motorcycle, which was of the deceased, and which was parked at the cycle stand of the Government Hospital, Kashipur. On 26.11.2010, the informant submitted another Tehrir to the Police Station, Kashipur that his son Sachin Gupta was missing from 24.11.2010. He had already lodged a report and today i.e. 26.11.2010, he received an information that his missing son has been murdered and post-mortem of the dead body of his son was conducted at a Moradabad Hospital. He then brought the dead body of his son to Kashipur. The informant further said in his another “Tehrir" that the abduction and murder of his deceased son appears to have committed by appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal, who is the close friend of his deceased son and his deceased son was in touch with the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal on his mobile phone prior to his abduction and later he was murdered. On 26.11.2010, again a prosecution witness i.e. Safdar Ali-PW-9 submitted a Tehrir-Ex.Ka.9, to the Police Station Murapande, District Moradabad that an unknown dead body is lying in the Trench beside the road. During the period the deceased was in confinement, calls were made from the suspicious and fake mobile phone No. 9458222568, six times on the mobile phone of the deceased. During the period the deceased was in confinement, calls were made from the suspicious and fake mobile phone No. 9458222568, six times on the mobile phone of the deceased. At the time of ransom call from mobile of the deceased, the location of mobile phone of the deceased was found in Ramngar. During the investigation, it was found that on 24.11.2010, the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal was in Ramnagar. The appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal admitted in the investigation that the suspicious and fake mobile phone no.9458222568 was his and he confessed to the offence. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 26.11.2010 by Dr. Ashok Kumar-PW-3, in the District Hospital, Moradabad (U.P.). According to the post mortem report-Ex.Ka.6, asphyxia due to the strangulation was the cause of the death. On 04.12.2010, the appellant-Vimal Sharma was arrested and on the same day, the register of Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar, was taken into custody by the police on the identification of appellant-Vimal Sharma. On 05.12.2010, a cord was recovered on the identification of appellant-Vimal Sharma, which was used in the offence. The appellant-Javed was in Moradabad Jail in other offence. The wallet and some articles of the deceased Sachin Gupta were missing. On 27.01.2011, a Tavera car, wallet and missing articles of the deceased were recovered by the police on the identification of the appellant-Javed. The Investigating Officer collected the call details reports and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. On the basis of Tehrir, Ext.Ka.1, a FIR, Ext.Ka.4, was registered as Case Crime No.577/2010 against unknown persons under Section 364A IPC. The case was investigated. The Investigating Officer prepared a Site Plan of the house of the informant, Ext.Ka.23, Site Plan of the place of the recovery of the weapon of murder i.e. Cord (Rassi),Ext.Ka.27, Site Plan of the place of the recovery of dead body of the deceased, Ext.Ka.28, Site Plan of the place of the recovery of Tavera Car, Ext.Ka.34. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses. Post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in the District Hospital Moradabad. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet, Ext.Ka.33, against three accused persons namely, Akhil Kumar Agarwal, Pt. Vimal Kumar Sharma and Javed under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34, 414 and 364A of IPC. 4. Post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in the District Hospital Moradabad. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet, Ext.Ka.33, against three accused persons namely, Akhil Kumar Agarwal, Pt. Vimal Kumar Sharma and Javed under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34, 414 and 364A of IPC. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by learned A.C.J.M., Udham Singh Nagar. The charges under Sections 364A, 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with Section 34 & 120B of IPC were framed on 14.07.2011 against accused Akhil Kumar Agarwal and charges under Sections 364A, 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with Section 34, 120B and 414 of IPC were framed against accused Pt. Vimal Kumar Sharma & Javed on 14.07.2011. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The learned trial court heard arguments of both the parties, appreciated the evidences and held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused Akhil Kumar Agarwal under Section 120-B read with 364A of IPC and Section 201 read with 120-B of IPC and also against accused Pt. Vimal Kumar Sharma and accused Javed under Section 364A read with 120-B of IPC and Section 201 read with 120-B of IPC. At the same time, the trial court acquitted the accused-Akhil Kumar Agarwal under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 364A IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused Pt. Vimal Kumar Sharma and accused Javed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 120B and 414 of IPC. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ accused persons do not dispute that it is a case of homicidal death. However, it is argued that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and hence the appellants may be given the benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ accused persons do not dispute that it is a case of homicidal death. However, it is argued that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and hence the appellants may be given the benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , H.D. Sikand vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 2 SCC 116, State of U.P. vs. Wasif Haider, (2019) 2 SCC 303 , Hatti Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2007) 5 SCALE 706, Sahadevan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 , 2012 (1) NCC 854 Kansa Bahera vs. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480 , State (Government of NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 , State (Government of NCT of Delhi) vs. Nitin Gunwant Shah, (2016) 1 SCC 472 , Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 , Udai Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 16 SCC 17, Yogesh vs. State, (2018) 3 UC 2101, State vs. Jaideep and others, MANU/DE/4846/2018, Harpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 734 , Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 496 , Bharat vs. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 106 , Mohd. Faizan Ahamed @ Kalu vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 2 SCC 131 , Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.587 of 2008, Rakesh vs. State, decided on 28.05.2010. 7. As per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. We heard Mr. Vishnu Chandra Gupta, Mr. Vipul Gupta, Mr. R.S. Sammal and Mr. Lalit Sharma, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/accused persons, Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate appearing on behalf of the informant. We perused and gone through the record. 9. This case rests on circumstantial evidence. No one had seen the assault by the appellants/accused persons on the deceased Sachin Gupta. 10. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate appearing on behalf of the informant. We perused and gone through the record. 9. This case rests on circumstantial evidence. No one had seen the assault by the appellants/accused persons on the deceased Sachin Gupta. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is a well established law that in cases of the circumstantial evidence, all circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent and reliable evidence and all the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda (Supra), H.D. Sikand (Supra) and Hatti Singh (Supra). In H.D. Sikand (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the judgment of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda (Supra). In these cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy these tests :- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established. (ii) The facts so established should be consisted only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (v) There must be a chain of evidence to show complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. 11. The conviction of the appellants-accused persons is mainly based upon these circumstances- (i) The appellant-Akhil Agarwal obtained a fake I.D. Mobile No.9458222568 which was being used by him from 05.10.2010 to 24.11.2010. (ii) On 24.11.2010, a call was received by the informant-Rakesh Gupta on his mobile No.9412091051 from the mobile No.8923049537 of the deceased Sachin Gupta at about 06.03 p.m. (iii) On 24.11.2010 at about 03.00 p.m., deceased Sachin Gupta was seen alongwith the appellant-Vimal Sharma and appellant-Javed near Government Hospital, Kashipur by witness Deepak Arora-PW-4. (ii) On 24.11.2010, a call was received by the informant-Rakesh Gupta on his mobile No.9412091051 from the mobile No.8923049537 of the deceased Sachin Gupta at about 06.03 p.m. (iii) On 24.11.2010 at about 03.00 p.m., deceased Sachin Gupta was seen alongwith the appellant-Vimal Sharma and appellant-Javed near Government Hospital, Kashipur by witness Deepak Arora-PW-4. (iv) The witness Deepak Arora-PW4 saw appellant- Vimal Sharma with appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal near Manpur Tiraha, Kashipur on 24.11.2010 at about 06.00 p.m. and at that time appellant-Vimal Sharma was talking on his mobile to someone. (v) According to the call detail reports of mobile No.9837667689 of appellant-Akhil Agarwal, its location was also found near Manpur Tiraha, Kashipur. (vi) On 24.11.2010 at about 06.00 p.m., from mobile phone record, the presence of accused Pt. Vimal Kumar Sharma was also located at Manpur Tiraha, Kashipur. (vii) Location of mobile of deceased Sachin Gupta was found at Kashipur on 24.11.2010 at about 6.00 p.m. (viii) The appellant-Vimal Sharma, deceased Sachin Gupta and appellant Javed stayed at Hotel Taj, Corbett, Ramnagar on 24.11.2010. (ix) According to the disclosure statement of appellant Vimal Sharma and appellant Javed material used in the killing of the deceased and the wallet of the deceased were recovered. (x) On 04.12.2010 and 05.12.2010 on the identification of appellant-Vimal Sharma, Hotel Register, Ext.Ka.18, was taken into custody by the police from the Hotel Taj, Corbett, Ramnagar and recovered a cord, by which deceased was strangulated. (xi) On 27.01.2011, while the appellant Javed was in police custody, on his identification, Tavera Car No.US-06/A-1870, wallet and other articles of the deceased were recovered. (xii) The wallet of the deceased Sachin Gupta was identified by his father before the Court. (xiii) From 22.11.2010 to 25.11.2010, the appellant-Akhil Agarwal and appellant Javed were in close touch of each other through their mobiles and having talked to each other as per call detail report. (xiv) Mobile No. 9760413695 of appellant-Vimal Sharma and mobile no. 9897136621 of appellant-Javed were found in continuous contact and having talked to each other. (xv) Mobile I.D. of the deceased and appellants were proved by the prosecution's witnesses and the said mobile numbers were found using by the appellants. 12. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges against the accused persons examined nineteen witnesses and in the defence, witness Constable Naveen Chandra Joshi-DW1 and Phool Hasan-DW2 were examined. 13. (xv) Mobile I.D. of the deceased and appellants were proved by the prosecution's witnesses and the said mobile numbers were found using by the appellants. 12. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges against the accused persons examined nineteen witnesses and in the defence, witness Constable Naveen Chandra Joshi-DW1 and Phool Hasan-DW2 were examined. 13. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with crime because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Any possibility of bias or predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. 14. In Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 , the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the earlier judgment in Inder Singh and another Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161 , wherein it has been held, “Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. 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." 15. In State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and another, (2008) 17 SCC 587 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it has been said time and again by this Court that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. 16. In Ugar Ahir Vs. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. 16. In Ugar Ahir Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. 17. In Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 , the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled, “The court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in an ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim “let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing the world over and courts have been compelled to accept that “society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals". Now the maxim “let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing the world over and courts have been compelled to accept that “society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals". I find that this Court in recent times has conscientiously taken notice of these facts from time to time." 18. In view of the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we shall now proceed to test the submissions of the learned counsel for the both the parties in the light of the evidences on record. 19. Rakesh Gupta-PW-1 is the informant in this case who is the father of deceased Sachin Gupta. This witness has proved his Tehrir, Ext.Ka.1, and Ext.Ka.2, supurdiginama of the dead body of Sachin Gupta,Ext.Ka.3, and material exhibits 1 to 8. This witness stated on oath that the appellant-accused Akhil Agarwal was the friend of the deceased Sachin Gupta. This fact has been admitted by the appellant-accused Akhil Agarwal in his Grounds of Appeal. 20. The prosecution witness Constable Naveen Chand Joshi-PW-2 is the scriber of FIR,Ext.Ka.4. He also proved G.D.,Ext.Ka.5. 21. Dr. Ashok Kumar–PW-3 has conducted the post mortem of the dead body of deceased Sachin Gupta. This witness has proved post-mortem report,Ext.Ka.6. 22. All the appellants and the deceased Sachin Gupta were seen by the prosecution witness Deepak Arora, PW-4 on 24.11.2010. 23. Prosecution witness Makbool Hussain, PW-5, is the witness of Panchnama of dead body of deceased Sachin Gupta and he proved the inquest report,Ext.Ka.7, fard of blood-stained earth, Ext.Ka.8 and material Exhibits 10 to 16. 24. Prosecution witness Rais Ahmed, PW-6 is the owner of Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar. This witness has proved that appellant-accused Vimal Kumar Sharma and others in all three persons including deceased Sachin Gupta, stayed in his Hotel on 24.11.2010. This witness has proved the photo of deceased Sachin Gupta, Ext.Ka.17, and Hotel Register, Ext.Ka.18. 25. Prosecution witness Constable Deepak Kathait, PW-7 has proved the wallet of deceased and the vehicle Tavera used in the incident and recovery fard dated 27.01.2011-Ext.Ka.30. 26. Prosecution witness Jamil Ahamad, PW-8 has identified the wallet recovered from appellant-accused Javed and Tavera Car on 27.01.2011. This witness has stated that his signature is on the memo, Ext.Ka.30. 27. 25. Prosecution witness Constable Deepak Kathait, PW-7 has proved the wallet of deceased and the vehicle Tavera used in the incident and recovery fard dated 27.01.2011-Ext.Ka.30. 26. Prosecution witness Jamil Ahamad, PW-8 has identified the wallet recovered from appellant-accused Javed and Tavera Car on 27.01.2011. This witness has stated that his signature is on the memo, Ext.Ka.30. 27. Prosecution witness Safdar Ali, PW-9 is the witness who gave information on 26.11.2010 to the Police Station about the unknown dead body. This witness has proved panchnama, Ext.Ka.7 and fard of blood stained earth, Ext.Ka.8 and unknown dead body information report, Ext.Ka.9. 28. The prosecution witness Rishi Kapoor, PW10 was the police officer of the police station Murapande. This witness has proved the panchnama of dead body of deceased Sachin Gupta, Ext.Ka.7, and memo of blood stained earth, Ext.Ka.8. He has also proved the post-mortem process and entry in G.D. and material Exhibit 11 to Exhibit 18 including photograph of deceased Sachin Gupta, Exhibit 22 to Exhibit 26. 29. Sub Inspector Naresh Pal Singh, PW-11 is the witness of the recovery of cord which was used in the murder of the deceased. This witness recovered the said cord on the identification of the appellant-Vimal Sharma. The witness PW-11 has proved the said cord and its packing clothes, Ext.5 to Ext.16. 30. Inspector R.S. Aswal-PW-12 proved the recovery of Hotel Register, Ex.Ka.20, of Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar. According to the prosecution, said recovery of Hotel Register was made on the identification of appellant-Vimal Sharma, G.D., Ext.Ka.21, Ext.Ka.22 and Hotel Register, Ext.Ka.18 had been proved by this witness. 31. Witness Ravindra Kumar, PW-13, is the Investigating Officer. He had collected Call Detail Reports i.e. Exhibits 5ka/1 to 5k/11 and 5k/73 to 5k/128 from Naresh Chandra, PW-14. He narrated the steps taken by him in the course of the investigation. 32. Inspector Naresh Chandra, PW-14, the then S.O.G. had proved the letter Ext.Ka.25 which received by him from Investigating Officer, Ravindra Kumar, PW-13, by which the said call detail reports were required. Inspector Naresh Chandra, PW14, stated that he handed over the call detail reports i.e. Exhibits, 5k/1 to 5k/11 and 5k/73 to 5k/128 to the Investigating Officer, Ravindra Kumar, PW13. 33. Witness Sarvesh Kumar, PW15, is the Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL. This witness had proved the landline No.05947-278170 which belongs to appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal and was installed at his residential house. 34. 33. Witness Sarvesh Kumar, PW15, is the Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL. This witness had proved the landline No.05947-278170 which belongs to appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal and was installed at his residential house. 34. Witness Husain M. Zadi, PW16, is a Nodal Officer in Idea Cellular Company. This witness had certified and proved the mobile No.9837667689 of appellant Akhil Agarwal and mobile No.9837373774 of Tushar Agarwal, brother of appellant Akhil Agarwal. This witness had proved the ID of these mobile phones i.e. Ext.Ka.37 and Ext.Ka.38 and Call Detail Reports which were handed over to S.O.G. 35. The witness Radhey Shyam Shukla, PW17 is the Nodal Officer of Airtel Company. This witness had proved the I.D. and mobile No.9897136621 of appellant Javed and I.D. of mobile No.9760413695 of appellant Vimal Sharma, which are Ext.Ka.39 and Ext.Ka.40. This witness has also proved the call detail reports handed over to S.O.G. 36. The witness Amit Kumar Gangwar, PW18 is the Nodal Officer of Uninor Company. This witness has proved the I.D. of mobile No.8923049537, Ext.Ka.41, of deceased Sachin Gupta. This witness has proved that he handed over the Call Detail Reports to S.O.G. 37. The witness Vishnu Gopal Upadhyay, PW19 is retired Sub Inspector, then posted at Police Station Murapande, District Moradabad. This witness has proved the inquest proceedings dated 26.11.2010 and material of other recoveries, Ext.Ka.37, which were sent by this witness to Kotwali Kashipur. He sent a letter to Police Station Kashipur that the recovered dead body was belong to the missing Sachin Gupta, whose matter was registered in Police Station Kashipur as a Crime No.577 of 2010. 38. After examination of the appellants-accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants-accused persons examined two witnesses in their defence. 39. The witness Naveen Joshi, DW1 is a Constable. This witness has proved the entries of G.D. from 24.11.2010 to 27.11.2010 of Police Station Kashipur, Ext.Kha.1 to Ext.Kha.4. 40. The witness Phool Hasan, DW2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he does not know appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma personally and he was not working as a driver of appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma. 41. The informant Rakesh Gupta, PW1 has stated that he has a shop. On 24.11.2010, Wednesday, market was closed. His shop was opened for cleaning. His son Sachin Gupta came to his shop from his residence at about 02.00 p.m. with the lunch of the informant. His son then went away. 41. The informant Rakesh Gupta, PW1 has stated that he has a shop. On 24.11.2010, Wednesday, market was closed. His shop was opened for cleaning. His son Sachin Gupta came to his shop from his residence at about 02.00 p.m. with the lunch of the informant. His son then went away. The informant Rakesh Gupta, PW1 and witness Deepak Arora, PW4 are resident of Mohalla Rahamkhani, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The witness Deepak Arora, PW4 is running a PCO which is situated near Roadways Bus stop, Kashipur. This witness has stated on oath that he know the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal, who was present in the Court at the time of the evidence of this witness, and stated that on 24.11.2010 at about 03.00 p.m., he saw Sachin Gupta, who was talking with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed, both are resident of Thakurdwara and who were present in the Court at the time of evidence of this witness, in front of Government Hospital, Kashipur. This witness has stated that he had seen several times these two appellants in the shop of appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal. The witness Deepak Arora, PW4, further stated that the appellant Javed and appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma are doing the work of carpentering and both used to come to the PCO of this witness. The appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal did not deny the evidence of this witness that the appellant has a shop and this witness had seen several times the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed in his (appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal) shop and there is no suggestion on behalf of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed against the evidence of this witness that these both appellants used to go to the shop of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal. Therefore, these evidences of witness Deepak Arora, PW4 are unrebutted. 42. The witness Deepak Arora, PW4, stated that he asked Sachin Gupta why he was standing there. Sachin Gupta told him that he was going to Ramnagar with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed and then Sachin Gupta went to Ramnagar with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed in the Tavera car. These statements were also given by this witness to the Investigating Officer, Ravindra Kumar, PW13. Sachin Gupta told him that he was going to Ramnagar with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed and then Sachin Gupta went to Ramnagar with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed in the Tavera car. These statements were also given by this witness to the Investigating Officer, Ravindra Kumar, PW13. This witness has clearly stated on oath that he saw appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma with appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal near Manpur Tiraha, Kashipur on 24.11.2010 at about 06:00 P.M. and at that time the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma was talking on his mobile phone to someone. 43. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the witness Deepak Arora, PW4, is the neighbour of the informant, and consequently, being an interested witness, his evidence is not reliable. 44. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the witness Deepak Arora, PW4, is not interested witness. In the light of the above submissions, it is the duty of the Court to consider trustworthiness of the evidence of Deepak Arora, PW4. 45. According to Bentham, “Witnesses are the eyes and ears of the justice." A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means, unless the witness has such as enmity against the appellants, to wish to implicate them falsely. Deepak Arora, PW4 has clearly stated that he has no friendship with the informant. There is no evidence on the record that this witness is inimical to the appellants and when the witness who is not shown to be interested in the prosecution or inimical to the appellants must be held to be disinterested witness. The evidence of Deepak Arora-PW-4 cannot be brushed aside merely on this ground that he is a neighbour. Nothing has been brought out by the appellants, which may in any way cast a doubt about the reliability of the evidence of this witness. The testimony of this witness cannot be rejected merely because he is a resident of the locality, where the informant resides unless the evidence is shaken in cross examination or the demeanour of this witness is such as to lead to the inevitable conclusion that his evidence is doubtful. The minor variations and contradictions will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants. The minor variations and contradictions will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants. Therefore, we are satisfied on the perusal of the entire evidence of this witness that his evidence is trustworthy and fully reliable. 46. According to the prosecution, the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed accompanied with the deceased went to Hotel Taj Corbett, which is situated in Ramnagar, in Tavera Car from the place of Government Hospital, Kashipur. On 04.12.2010, the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma arrested and on the same day, the register of Visitors' of Hotel Taj Corbett was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer on the identification of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma. In the said Hotel Register, Ext.Ka.18, entry was made by the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma himself. 47. The Witness Rais Ahmad, PW6, is the owner of the Hotel Taj Corbett. He has said in his examination-in-chief that on 04.12.2010, Kotwal Kashipur and Investigating Officer Ravindra Kumar along with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma came to his hotel where they had checked the Visitors' Register of this hotel and took it with them in sealed cover, in which the details of the visitors are recorded. The memo of the Hotel Visitors' Register, Ext.Ka.20, is proved by Rais Ahmad,PW6. He proved his signature on Ext.Ka.20. The witness Rais Ahmad, PW6, stated in his examination-in-chief that at serial No.240 of this Register, entry has been made by the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma in his own hand and recorded the number of his vehicle and his mobile phone on 24.10.2010 at 05.00 p.m., before this witness. He further stated that they were three persons and in the hotel register, the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma has mentioned his mobile No.9760413695. The witness Rais Ahmad, PW6, after seeing the photo of the deceased, stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased came in his hotel on 24.11.2010 along with the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and one another person. However, he did not identify that two accused persons, who were present in the court. Therefore, on the request of the prosecution, the learned trial court permitted the prosecution to put question to this witness which might be put in cross examination. 48. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the witness Rais Ahamad, PW6, did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the chain of circumstantial evidence has failed. Therefore, on the request of the prosecution, the learned trial court permitted the prosecution to put question to this witness which might be put in cross examination. 48. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the witness Rais Ahamad, PW6, did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the chain of circumstantial evidence has failed. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. It is well settled that merely because a witness is declared hostile, his evidence cannot be rejected in toto. If any part of the evidence of a hostile witness is found truthful, the Court can rely on such part of his evidence. In Rajendra vs. State of U.P., (2009) 13 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that merely because of a witness, deviates from his statement, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. In Govindappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 6 SCC 533, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the deposition of a hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent he supported the case of prosecution. 49. The evidence of Rais Ahmad, PW6, is corroborated by the evidence of Inspector R.S. Aswal, PW12 and witness Ravindra Kumar, PW13, Investigating Officer. The Visitors' Register of the Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar was taken into custody in the presence of the witness Inspector R.S. Aswal, PW12. Inspector R.S. Aswal, PW12 and witness Ravindra Kumar, PW13 have stated that on 04.12.2010 the Visitors' Register of Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar was taken into custody and at that time the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma was present there. There is no suggestion on behalf of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma against these evidences. Therefore, these evidences are un-rebutted. According to the said register, the Registration No. UA06H-1870 of Tavera car and mobile phone number 9760413695 of appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma are entered at 05:00 P.M. on 04.12.2010 and it is also important to note that the witness Rais Ahmad has identified the photo of the deceased Sachin Gupta. The defence witness Phool Hasan, DW2 has stated that he was not driver of the Tavera car but on this sole statement, the reliable evidences of the prosecution cannot be rejected. Whereas, the said Tavera car was recovered on 27.01.2011 on the identification of the appellant Javed. The defence witness Phool Hasan, DW2 has stated that he was not driver of the Tavera car but on this sole statement, the reliable evidences of the prosecution cannot be rejected. Whereas, the said Tavera car was recovered on 27.01.2011 on the identification of the appellant Javed. The appellants could not show that in the light of the evidence of Constable Naveen Chandra Joshi, DW1, the prosecution case becomes suspicious. 50. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal submitted that only connection of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal in this matter is the mobile phone, and the calls therein. The learned counsel for the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal argued that the evidences of the four officials of mobile phone company, namely, witness Sarvesh Kumar, PW15, Official of BSNL, Husain M. Zadi, PW16, Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Company, Radhey Shyam Shukla, PW17, Nodal Officer of Airtel Company and Amit Kumar Gangwar, PW18, Nodal Officer of Uninor Company are not admissible in evidence, since the mobile calls details are not proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in the light of the pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. (Supra), State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (Supra), Uday Kumar Singh (Supra), Harpal Singh (Supra), judgment of High Court of Delhi in State vs. Jaideep (Supra) and judgment of this High Court in Yogesh vs. State (Supra). 51. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 , in which the Hon'ble Apex court has referred the judgment of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, has observed in paragraph Nos.14 to 18, 20 to 22 and 24 which read as under:- “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the section starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document i.e. electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65-B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act: (i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer; (ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity; (iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. 15. 15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. 16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. 17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45-A—opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence. 18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. 20. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65-A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65-B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. The very caption of Section 65-A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65-B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield. 21. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu a two-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an issue on production of electronic record as evidence. While considering the printouts of the computerised records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, it was held at para 150 as follows: (SCC p. 714) “150. According to Section 63, “secondary evidence" means and includes, among other things, ‘copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies'. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed†* at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65." It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible official had duly certified the document at the time of production itself. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. However, it was held that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence, under Sections 63 and 65, of an electronic record. 22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65-A and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case, does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. 24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence of electronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act." In the case of Uday Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and others, (2015) 16 SCC 217 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph 13.4 which reads as under :- “13.4. The High Court further found that the printout, which was produced before the Court has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Further, the High Court noticed that the printout produced does not bear any certificate of the competent officer of the telephone exchange, certifying the correctness of the data indicated therein. Hence, the High Court correctly held that the said printout cannot be admitted in the evidence and it would not be safe to rely on the same for convicting the accused." In the case of Harpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed:- “Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to prove on the basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call details kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a hard disc of the company server, to co-relate the calls made from and to the cellphones involved including those, amongst others recovered from the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section 65-B(4) of the Act. Though the High Court, in its impugned judgment, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the plea of inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the stipulations contained under Section 65 of the Act had been complied with, in the teeth of the decision of this Court in Anvar P.V. ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of Sections 65-B(2) and (4) of the Act, we are unable to sustain this finding. As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65-B(2) had been complied with, in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence. This Court in Anvar P.V. has held in no uncertain terms that the evidence relating to electronic record being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to yield thereto. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the requirements of Section 65-B are satisfied. This conclusion of ours is inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Act as above." In the case of State vs. Jaideep and others, MANU/DE/4846/2018, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred the judgment of Anvar P.V. (Supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the General Law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. The Special Law will always prevail over the General Law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements Under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sonu vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 , in which Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that Electronic records play a crucial role in criminal investigations and prosecutions. The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Interpreting Section 65B(4), this Court in Anvar's case held that an electronic record is inadmissible in evidence without the certification as provided therein. Navjot Sandhu's case which took the opposite view was overruled. In Yogesh vs. State (Supra), in the facts and circumstances of that case, this High Court has observed that the prosecution has not proved calls details as per Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. 52. It is relevant to mention here the details of mobile handset phones and landline phone, which were involved in this matter, for better appreciation of evidences adduced by the prosecution. The details are as under :- (i) The mobile phone bearing SIM No.9412091051 of the informant Rakesh Gupta, on which the ransom call was received. (ii) The mobile phone bearing SIM No.8923049537 of the deceased, which was used in this crime. (iii) The mobile phone, Ext.27, bearing SIM No.9837667689 of the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal, which was used in this offence. This mobile phone was recovered by the police from the possession of this appellant on 27.11.2010. (iv) The mobile phone bearing SIM No.9458222568, was being used by the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal. He used to talk to the deceased on the mobile phone of the deceased Sachin Gupta from this mobile phone. (v) The mobile phone, Ext.28, bearing SIM No.9760413695 of the appellant–Pt. (iv) The mobile phone bearing SIM No.9458222568, was being used by the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal. He used to talk to the deceased on the mobile phone of the deceased Sachin Gupta from this mobile phone. (v) The mobile phone, Ext.28, bearing SIM No.9760413695 of the appellant–Pt. Vimal Kumar Sharma, which was used in this offence. This mobile phone was recovered by the police from the possession of this appellant on 04.12.2010. (vi) The mobile phone bearing SIM No.9897136621, was being used by the appellant-Javed. This mobile phone was involved in this offence. (vii) The mobile phone, on the ID of the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal, bearing SIM No.9927715875, was being used by the wife of Akhil Kumar Agarwal. A call was made to this mobile phone from the mobile phone No.9458222568 on 07.10.2010. (viii) The landline phone No.05947-278170 of the house of the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal. The calls were made to this landline phone from the mobile No.9458222568. 53. The mobile phones are carried by its owners at all times, and constantly connect to local mobile base stations that relay the phone's signals. By tracking the base stations to which a phone connected at a given time, the location of the owner can be inferred within a given region. 54. Mr. Sarvash Kumar, PW15, Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL, provided the registration of landline phone No.05947-278170 of the residence of appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal and submitted that the call details of this landline before the period of 01.01.2012 has been deleted. He filed self attested two photostat copies of the call details. The Investigating Officer has also stated that this landline phone belongs to the residential house of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal. 55. Mr. Husain M. Zadi, PW16, Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Company, has certified and proved the I.D. of the mobile phone No.9837667689 of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal, Ext.Ka.37 and the I.D., Ext.Ka.38, of mobile phone No.9837373774 of Mr. Tushar Agarwal son of S.K. Agarwal, brother of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal. This witness has stated that call details were received on 26.11.2010 by S.O.G., Udham Singh Nagar from the department of this witness. This witness has filed the self attested copies of the call details from the period of 01.11.2010 to 26.11.2010 of the mobile phone of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal at the time of his evidence. 56. Mr. This witness has stated that call details were received on 26.11.2010 by S.O.G., Udham Singh Nagar from the department of this witness. This witness has filed the self attested copies of the call details from the period of 01.11.2010 to 26.11.2010 of the mobile phone of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal at the time of his evidence. 56. Mr. Radhey Shyam Shukla, PW17, Nodal Officer of Airtel Company has stated that number of mobile phone No.9760413695 belongs to the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma, was issued on 23.06.2008 and number of mobile phone No.9897136621 was issued on 17.09.2009 which was belong to Babbu S/o Shamshuddin, resident of Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. According to the evidences adduced by the prosecution, this mobile phone was used by the appellant Javed. This witness has stated that the call details of these mobile phone numbers were received by the S.O.G. 57. Mr. Amit Kumar Gangwar, PW18 proved the I.D. of mobile phone No.8923049537 of deceased Sachin Gupta. At the time of his evidence, he came with the original I.D record of this mobile number and produced its self attested copy, Ext.Ka.41. This witness has stated that the call details of this mobile phone were received by S.O.G., Udham Singh Nagar. 58. The Inspector Naresh Chandra, PW14, then S.O.G. In-charge, Udham Singh Nagar, has proved this fact that these all the call details were received by him from these companies and handed over to the Investigating Officer. 59. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, PW13, the Investigating Officer has stated that during the investigation, he received the call detail reports from In-charge S.O.G. 60. In the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants stated that they were not familiar to each other before the occurrence. These statements of the appellants are found false in the light of the prosecution's evidence, and if the statements of the appellants are found false, then the same can be considered as providing a missing link and adding to the chain of proved circumstances. Therefore, the said answers can be considered in judging the guilt of the appellants in connection with the evidences of the prosecution. 61. Mr. Therefore, the said answers can be considered in judging the guilt of the appellants in connection with the evidences of the prosecution. 61. Mr. Husain M. Zadi, PW16, Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Company proved this fact that the mobile phone No. 9837667689 (appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal) and mobile phone No. 9760413695 (appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma) were in constant touch and there was 22 talk on these mobile phones by both ways from 24.11.2010 to 25.11.2010 and on 24.11.2010 from 01.00 p.m. to 03.00 p.m. there was 08 talk between these two mobile phones. In the light of the call details, the witness Radhey Shyam Shukla, PW17, Nodal Officer, Airtel Company, has proved that mobile phone No.9897136621, which was used by the appellant Javed, and mobile phone No.9760413695 of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma were in constant touch and there was 23 talk on these mobile phones on 24.11.2010 and about 18 times on 25.11.2010. 62. Mr. Amit Kumar Gangwar, PW18, Nodal Officer of Uninor Company, proved the I.D. of mobile phone No.8923049537 of deceased Sachin Gupta, Ext.Ka.41, and stated that according to call details, paper No.3Ka/11, the mobile phone number of the deceased Sachin Gupta and suspected mobile phone No.9458222568 were in constant touch and there was 06 talk between these mobile phones from 13.05 p.m. to 14.49 p.m. on 24.11.2010 and on 24.11.2010 at 06.03 p.m. talked on mobile phone No.9412091051 of the informant from mobile phone of the deceased-Sachin Gupta. At that time, the locations of these mobile phones were in different places in Kashipur city. According to the witness Mr. Husain M. Zadi-PW-16, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Company, the location of the mobile phone of the appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal was also in Kashipur at 06.07 p.m. on 24.11.2010. 63. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, PW13, the Investigating Officer, has stated that during investigation, it was found that the suspected mobile phone No.9458222568, on an unknown I.D., was activated on 05.10.2010. In the investigation, it was found that SMS were sent to the mobile phone of appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal from this suspected mobile phone number on 05.10.2010 at 11:23:26 a.m. and after that, the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal sent SMS on this suspected mobile phone. In the investigation, it was found that SMS were sent to the mobile phone of appellant-Akhil Kumar Agarwal from this suspected mobile phone number on 05.10.2010 at 11:23:26 a.m. and after that, the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal sent SMS on this suspected mobile phone. It was also revealed that on 07.10.2010 a call was made to the mobile phone No.9927715875, which was used by the wife of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal and calls were made three times to the landline of the residence of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal from this suspected mobile phone. During the investigation, it was also revealed that the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal purchased the BSNL SIM No.-9458222568, suspected number, and used to talk to the deceased on the mobile phone of the deceased Sachin Gupta. 64. The evidences of these witnesses are found reliable, true and correct version of events. Therefore, the onus of disproving and contradicting the same shifted upon the appellants which onus they have failed to discharge. When the entire material was put to the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants simply denied the same but have not led any evidence in their defence on this aspect. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the evidences adduced by the prosecution, which conclusively links the appellants with the offence. 65. In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2302 of 2017 Shafhi Mohammad vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and batch, on 30.01.2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed : (1) Since identical question arose for consideration in this special leave petition as noted in Order dated 12th October, 2017, we have heard learned amicus, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, senior advocate, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, senior advocate, assisted by Ms. Ananya Ghosh, Advocate, on the question of admissibility of electronic record. We have also heard Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel, and Ms. Shirin Khajuria, learned counsel, appearing for Union of India. (2) An apprehension was expressed on the question of applicability of conditions under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act to the effect that if a statement was given in evidence, a certificate was required in terms of the said provision from a person occupying a responsible position in relation to operation of the relevant device or the management of relevant activities. It was submitted that if the electronic evidence was relevant and produced by a person who was not in custody of the device from which the electronic document was generated, requirement of such certificate could 4 not be mandatory. It was submitted that Section 65B of the Evidence Act was a procedural provision to prove relevant admissible evidence and was intended to supplement the law on the point by declaring that any information in an electronic record, covered by the said provision, was to be deemed to be a document and admissible in any proceedings without further proof of the original. This provision could not be read in derogation of the existing law on admissibility of electronic evidence. (3) We have been taken through certain decisions which may be referred to. In Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 (Supp) SCC 611, a Three-Judge Bench considered the said issue. English Judgments in R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 All ER 464, and R. v. Robson, (1972) 2 ALL ER 699, and American Law as noted in American Jurisprudence 2d (Vol.29) page 494, were cited with approval to the effect that it will be wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy of the recording can be proved. Such evidence should always be regarded with some caution and assessed in the light of all the circumstances of each case. Electronic evidence was held to be admissible subject to safeguards adopted by the Court about the authenticity of the same. In the case of 5 tape-recording it was observed that voice of the speaker must be duly identified, accuracy of the statement was required to be proved by the maker of the record, possibility of tampering was required to be ruled out. Reliability of the piece of evidence is certainly a matter to be determined in the facts and circumstances of a fact situation. However, threshold admissibility of an electronic evidence cannot be ruled out on any technicality if the same was relevant. (4) In Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329 , the same principle was reiterated. This Court observed that new techniques and devices are order of the day. However, threshold admissibility of an electronic evidence cannot be ruled out on any technicality if the same was relevant. (4) In Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329 , the same principle was reiterated. This Court observed that new techniques and devices are order of the day. Though such devices are susceptible to tampering, no exhaustive rule could be laid down by which the admission of such evidence may be judged. Standard of proof of its authenticity and accuracy has to be more stringent than other documentary evidence. (5) In Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178 , a Three-Judge Bench observed that advancement of information technology and scientific temper must pervade the method of investigation. Electronic evidence was relevant to establish facts. Scientific and electronic evidence can be a great help to an investigating agency. Reference was made to the decisions of this Court in Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 . (6) We may, however, also refer to judgment of this Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 , delivered by a Three-Judge Bench. In the said judgment in para 24 it was observed that electronic evidence by way of primary evidence was covered by Section 62 of the Evidence Act to which procedure of Section 65B of the Evidence Act was not admissible. However, for the secondary evidence, procedure of Section 65B of the Evidence Act was required to be followed and a contrary view taken in Navjot Sandh (supra) that secondary evidence of electronic record could be covered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, was not correct. There are, however, observations in para 14 to the effect that electronic record can be proved only as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act. (7) Though in view of Three-Judge Bench judgments in Tomaso Bruno and Ram Singh (supra), it can be safely held that electronic evidence is admissible and provisions under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act are by way of a clarification and are procedural provisions. (7) Though in view of Three-Judge Bench judgments in Tomaso Bruno and Ram Singh (supra), it can be safely held that electronic evidence is admissible and provisions under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act are by way of a clarification and are procedural provisions. If the 7 electronic evidence is authentic and relevant the same can certainly be admitted subject to the Court being satisfied about its authenticity and procedure for its admissibility may depend on fact situation such as whether the person producing such evidence is in a position to furnish certificate under Section 65B(h). (8) Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be held to be a complete code on the subject. In Anvar P.V. (supra), this Court in para 24 clarified that primary evidence of electronic record was not covered under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. Primary evidence is the document produced before Court and the expression “document" is defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to mean any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. (9) The term “electronic record" is defined in Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as follows: “Electronic record" means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche." (10). Expression “data" is defined in Section 2(o) of the Information Technology Act as follows. “Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer." (11) The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such 9 document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory. (12) Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies. 66. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment passed in the case of Shafhi Mohammad (Supra) is per-in-curium in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. (Supra). We do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. In Shafiq Ahmad (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court after noticing the aforesaid judgments, including the judgment in Anvar P.V., clarified and came to the conclusion that the said procedure can be relaxed by the Court whenever the interest of justice so demands. We are, hence, bound by the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 67. There is a charge of conspiracy as well, and for this purpose, provisions of Section 120-B of IPC are invoked, which reads as under : “120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.— (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both." 68. The Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. Conspiracy has to be treated as a continuing offence. Any person associating himself with the conspirator shall be held liable as co-conspirator accused. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are :- (i) an agreement between two or more persons; and (ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done, either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. 69. Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. In State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Nitin Gunwant Shah (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. In a case of criminal conspiracy thus circumstantial evidence has an added significance. 70. In Kehar Singh and others vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609 , the Hon'ble Apex Court stressed upon the relevance of circumstantial evidence in proving conspiracy as direct evidence in such cases is almost impossible to adduce. In Major E.G. Barsay vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762 ; the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. It is not important that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. It is not important that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. In K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Neither is it necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial act. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implications. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is the seldom and open affair. 71. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment in Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra) and Kansa Bahera Vs. State of Orissa (Supra). 72. In Chaman Lal and another vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2018 (1) CCSC 268, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that significantly, the proved abduction of the deceased by the appellants is per se a criminal offence and carries with it a much higher degree of sinister culpability compared to any phenomenon of “last seen together", simpliciter. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred the judgment in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others, (2000) 8 SCC 382 and observed that in that case in a somewhat similar fact situation, where the deceased was abducted by the accused persons and thereafter his mangled body was found, held that the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as if it admits of no process of intelligent reasoning. It was enunciated that the doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule qua the purport of presumption of fact as a rule in the law of evidence. After referring abovementioned judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that the deceased had been abducted by the accused, they alone knew what happened to him until he was with them and if he was found murdered in a short time, after the abduction, the permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused had murdered him. It was held that such inference can be disrupted, if the accused would tell the Court what else had happened to the deceased at least until he was in their custody. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act was not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but would apply to cases were prosecution had succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference could be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused, by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts succeed to offer any explanation, to drive the Court to draw a different inference. The ratio of this judgment is fully applicable in somewhat similar fact situation of this case. 73. The prosecution witness Safdar Ali, PW9, residence of Munimpur, Police Station Mundapande, District Moradabad informed to the Police Station Mundapande on 26.11.2010 through his Tahrir, Ext.Ka-9, regarding a unknown dead body lying in a trench beside the road. The panchnama of the dead body was conducted by S.I. Rishi Kapoor, PW10, then In-charge Police Chowki Karanpur of Police Station Mundapande, in the presence of the witnesses and took the sample of simple earth and blood stained earth from the spot. According to the inquest report, Ext.Ka7, injuries were found on the face, neck, wrist and fingers of both the hands and below the knee of the left leg of the deceased. Constable Chaman Singh informed that the unknown dead body was identified as body of the deceased Sachin Gupta. According to the inquest report, Ext.Ka7, injuries were found on the face, neck, wrist and fingers of both the hands and below the knee of the left leg of the deceased. Constable Chaman Singh informed that the unknown dead body was identified as body of the deceased Sachin Gupta. On this information, witness Vishnu Gopal Upadhyay, PW19, sent a letter to Police Station Kashipur and informed that the recovered dead body is belong to the missing Sachin Gupta, whose matter was registered in the Police Station Kashipur as a Case Crime No.577 of 2010. After receiving the information, the informant Rakesh Gupta went there, identified the dead body and brought it to Kashipur after post-mortem. 74. Dr. Ashok Kumar, PW3 conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Sachin Gupta on 26.11.2010 in District Hospital, Moradabad. He proved the post-mortem report Ex.Ka.6. During the post-mortem examination following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased :- (i) Ligature mark 42 cm x 3 cm around the neck, 5 cm below the chin, 9 cm above from strenuous mark, 5 cm below from left ear and 6 cm below right ear. Tissues under ligature mark ecchymosised and blood clots present, fracture of thyroid trachea and thyroid bone. (ii) contusion 8 cm x 5 cm on the top of left shoulder. (iii) contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on left chest below the clavicle bone. (iv) contusion 10 cm x 18 cm on the left wrist and hand. (v) contusion 11cm x 19 cm on the right wrist and hand. According to the evidence of Dr. Ashok Kumar, PW3, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the time of the death was after 07.00 p.m. on 25.11.2010. This witness has stated that this asphyxia due to strangulation could be caused by cord. 75. The prosecution's case is further corroborated by the recovery of murder weapon ‘cord', used for strangulation, and other articles of the deceased such as his wallet and the Tavera car, in which the deceased was taken away to the Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar. 76. Appellant Vimal Sharma was arrested on 04.12.2010. 75. The prosecution's case is further corroborated by the recovery of murder weapon ‘cord', used for strangulation, and other articles of the deceased such as his wallet and the Tavera car, in which the deceased was taken away to the Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar. 76. Appellant Vimal Sharma was arrested on 04.12.2010. S.I. Naresh Pal Singh PW-11, has stated that on 05.12.2010, the appellant Vimal Sharma had shown the place in the area of Karanpur, P.S. Mundapande, District Moradabad, where the dead body of the deceased Sachin Gupta was thrown after strangulation and from that place, on the written information of the witness Safdar Ali R/o Munimpur, Police Station Mundapande, District Moradabad, the dead body of the deceased Sachin Gupta was recovered on 26.11.2010. The site map of the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, Ext.Ka-28, is proved by Ravindra Kumar, PW13, Investigating Officer. S.I. Naresh Pal Singh, PW11 stated further that he recovered the murder weapon ‘cord' on 05.12.2010, which was used in strangulation of the deceased Sachin Gupta, on the disclosure of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma in front of the witness Maqbool Hussain, PW-5. 77. Ravindra Kumar, PW13, Investigating Officer, prepared and proved the site plan, Ext.Ka.27, of this recovery site. S.I. Naresh Pal Singh, PW-11 proved the memo of recovery of the cord, Ext.Ka.19 and recovered cord, Ext.15 and stated that at the time of this recovery appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma had told that this cord was used in strangulation of the deceased Sachin Gupta. The independent witness Maqbool Hussain, PW5, also proved the recovered cord Ext.15. The evidence of S.I. Naresh Pal Singh, PW11, is fully corroborated with the evidence of Maqbool Hussain, PW5, wherein this witness also stated that at that time of this recovery appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma told that this cord was used in strangulation of the deceased Sachin Gupta. 78. On 27.01.2011, at about 17.45 hours, a Tavera car, bearing Registration No.UA06H – 1870, a wallet, which was lying in the said car and from the said wallet passport, voters' card of the deceased Sachin Gupta, amount deposited slip of ICICI Bank and two visitor cards of City Fashion in the name of the deceased, were recovered by the Police on the identification of the appellant Javed. These recoveries were made from a plot, between the place Maruwakeda Ganj and Nandnagar Industrial Estate, situated in the area of Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. At the time of this recovery proceedings, witness Jamil Ahmad, PW8 was present. 79. The recovery memo, Ext.Ka-30, of Tavera car, wallet and other articles has been proved by Ravindra Kumar, PW13. This witness has stated that the signatures of the accused Javed and witnesses had been taken on the recovery memo and on the cloth, in which other recovered articles were kept and sealed. The evidence of this witness is corroborated with the evidence of Jamil Ahmad, PW8, an independent witness. This independent witness, a passer – by is resident of the area of Maruwakeda Ganj, stated that he was going to his house in the evening of 27.01.2011 from Kashipur. On the way, he saw Police personnel, who asked the name and address of this witness. The witness Jamil Ahmad, PW8, admitted his signatures on the recovery memo, Ext.Ka-30 and on the sealed cloth, in which other recovered articles were sealed at the spot. He stated that the Tavera model car was on the spot, which was recovered by the Daroga and at that time 4-5 other police personnel and many other persons were present there. However, this witness stated that he did not see any accused at the recovery site and his signature was obtained on a blank paper. The learned counsel for appellants pressed this statement and submitted that in the light of this statement of witness Jamil Ahmad, said recovery is unbelievable. But, after careful perusal of the recovery memo, Ext.Ka-30, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. From the perusal of the recovery memo, Ext.Ka-30, the manner of preparation of this recovery memo and writing thereon did not point out anywhere that the signature of this witness was taken on blank papers. On the other hand, after close scrutiny, the presence of the witness Jamil Ahmad, PW8, at the recovery site and his evidence regarding recovery proceedings are found reliable and free from any doubt. From the evidence of this witness, the evidence of Ravindra Kumar, PW13, has been fully corroborated that the Tavera car bearing Registration No.UA06H – 1870 with wallet and other articles of the deceased Sachin Gupta were recovered on the identification of the appellant Javed. From the evidence of this witness, the evidence of Ravindra Kumar, PW13, has been fully corroborated that the Tavera car bearing Registration No.UA06H – 1870 with wallet and other articles of the deceased Sachin Gupta were recovered on the identification of the appellant Javed. Appellant Javed had not denied his signature on the recovery memo, Ext.Ka-30. It is also important to note that the witness Rais Ahmad, PW6, owner of Hotel Taj Corbett, proved the visitors' register of his hotel and stated that on 24.11.2010, Vimal Kumar Sharma had entered his entry in this register in his own handwriting and entered his car number UA06H – 1870 and his mobile number 9760413695, which was recovered by the police from appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma on 04.12.2010. At the time of the evidence of the witness Rais Ahmad, PW6, the recovered Tavera car, Ext.20, was produced before the court. After seeing the Tavera car, the witness Rais Ahmad, PW6, certified that the registration number of this Tavera car was entered on 24.11.2010 by Vimal Kumar Sharma in the visitors' register of his hotel. 80. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma argued that said confession of appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma made before the police is inadmissible. It is true that no confession made by any person while he was in custody of the police shall be proved against him, but, even when an accused being in the custody of police makes a statement that reveals some information leading to the recovery of material or discovery of any fact concerning to the alleged offence, such statement can be proved against him. The recovery is a part of investigation and permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused, and this is admissible in law. The recovery is a part of investigation and permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused, and this is admissible in law. In Delhi Administration vs. Bal Krishan and others, (1972) 4 SCC 659 , the Hon'ble Apex Court analyzed the concept, use and evidentiary value of recovered articles and held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits proof of so much of the information which is given by persons accused of an offence when in the custody of a police officer as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered irrespective of whether such information amounts to a confession or not, under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer whether in custody or not can be proved as against the accused. But Section 27 of the Evidence Act is by way of a proviso to these sections and a statement, even by way of confession, which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible as evidence against accused in the circumstances stated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 81. Analyzing the earlier decisions, in Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657 , the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the various requirements of the Section 27 of the Evidence Act as follows : (1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. (2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act. (4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) There upon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible. 82. In Madhu vs. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 , 2012 (1) NCC 353 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the rationale behind Section 27 of the Evidence Act is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. The discovery of facts itself, therefore, substantiate the truth of the confessional statement and since it is true that a Court must endeavour to search Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 83. In the instant matter, the recoveries made, when the appellants, Vimal Kumar Sharma and Javed were in custody have been established. The recoveries are founded on the statements of the disclosure. On a studied scrutiny of the evidences produced by the prosecution regarding these recoveries, we do not find anything that these recoveries have really not been made on the information of these appellants and have been planted by the police. 84. The learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the FIR does not contain any amount of ransom, names of appellants Vimal Kumar Sharma and Javed, names of witness-Deep Arora-PW-4 and Khairati Lal in the second Tehrir of the informant dated 26.11.2010 and therefore, the prosecution's case is not acceptable. 85. The informant Rakesh Gupta-PW-1 has stated that on 25.11.2010 Deepak Arora and Khairati Lal disclosed involvement of all three appellants in commission of crime. It is well settled law that FIR is not an encyclopedia which should contain all the details of the incident. FIR is not expected to contain all the details of the prosecution's case. It may be sufficient, if the broad facts of the prosecution's case about the occurrence appear. The omission as to the names of the appellants or the witnesses may not be fatal to the prosecution. FIR is not expected to contain all the details of the prosecution's case. It may be sufficient, if the broad facts of the prosecution's case about the occurrence appear. The omission as to the names of the appellants or the witnesses may not be fatal to the prosecution. Since the FIR is lodged without unnecessary delay, therefore, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution's case as given in FIR merely because of omission. In Rattan Singh vs. State of H.P., (1997) 4 SCC 161 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the criminal courts should not be fastidious with mere omission in the first information statement since such statement can neither be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened nor expected to contain an exhaustive catalogue of the events which took place. The person who furnishes the first information to the authorities might be fresh with the facts but he need not necessarily have the skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire story without anything missing therefrom. Some may miss even important details in a narration. 86. In State of U.P. vs. Naresh and others, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , reiterating the principle, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it is well settled legal proposition that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It may not and need not contain all the details. In the present case, FIR was registered without unnecessary delay and which itself lends assurance to the prosecution's case. The object of the FIR is to set the law in motion. The non-mention of the amount of ransom, names of appellants and witnesses in the FIR can hardly be fatal to the prosecution's case. 87. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, reliable, trustworthy and cogent evidences of the prosecution and in view of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants that the omission of the ransom amount, names of the appellants Vimal Kumar Sharma and Javed and names of witnesses in the FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 88. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the informant lodged the FIR only on suspicion and argued that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. 88. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the informant lodged the FIR only on suspicion and argued that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. Learned counsel for appellants relied on the judgments in Mohd. Faizan Ahmad alias Kalu Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) and Rakesh Vs. State (Supra). However, we do not find any evidence or material on record in support of such submissions made by the learned counsel of the appellants. On the other hand, the participation of the appellants in the offence stands proved in the light of the reliable and cogent incriminating evidences produced by the prosecution. This case against the appellants is not based on a mere suspicion. The case against the appellants is based on strong foundations of material evidences. The chain of circumstances are complete so as to bring home the guilt of the appellants. 89. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that none of the relevant incriminating of circumstantial evidence had been put to the appellants while examining them under Section 313 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for appellants relied upon the judgments in Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) and Bharat Vs. State (Supra). On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and informant submitted that all the relevant questions had been put to the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 90. Every error or omission in compliance of the provision of Section 313 the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not necessarily vitiate trial. It would not be enough for the appellants to show that they had not been questioned on a particular circumstance. They must show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced them and has resulted in the failure of justice. No material is placed before the Court to show as to what and in what manner the prejudice, if any, was caused to the appellants, whereas, the appellants were aware of accusation and charges against them. On the other hand, their answers are found false such as that they were not known to each other, before the occurrence. No material is placed before the Court to show as to what and in what manner the prejudice, if any, was caused to the appellants, whereas, the appellants were aware of accusation and charges against them. On the other hand, their answers are found false such as that they were not known to each other, before the occurrence. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the deceased had been abducted by the appellants with conspiracy for ransom and thereafter the deceased was found murdered, therefore, permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the appellants had murdered him. 91. It has been pointed by the learned counsel for appellants that there are major defects in the investigation as no efforts made by the Investigating Officer, besides others, to recover the suspicious mobile phone, no efforts made to recover mobile phone of the deceased, no efforts made to send the recovered rope to FSL, site plan of the place was not prepared where witness Deepak Arora, PW4 had seen the deceased with appellant Vimal Sharma and appellant Javed on 24.11.2010. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that due to the defective investigation, the conviction is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Wasif Haider and others (Supra). 92. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is required to be kept in mind that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. It would not be just to acquit the appellants solely as a result of defective investigation. 93. In Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in cases of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect, to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. 94. It is well settled that even if the investigation is improper or defective the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. In the instant case, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 94. It is well settled that even if the investigation is improper or defective the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. In the instant case, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellants have not placed any material before us to show that any prejudice was caused to them for the reason of defective investigation. The said defective investigation or laches in the investigation does not go to the root of the prosecution case. 95. The chain of circumstances proved on the record against the appellants is as under:- (i) It is established that the deceased Sachin Gupta and appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal were fast friends. (ii) It is found during the investigation that the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal purchased the BSNL SIM No.-9458222568, suspected number, from which he used to talk to the deceased on his mobile phone. (iii) It is also established that the suspected mobile phone was activated on 05.10.2010 and was being used till 24.11.2010. (iv) It is also established that mobile phone of the deceased and suspected mobile phone were in constant touch and talked on between these mobile phones about six times from 13:05 P.M. to 14:49 P.M. on 24.11.2010, the date of abduction of the deceased. (v) It is also established that mobile phone of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal and mobile phone of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma were in constant touch and talked on these mobile phones 22 times from 24.11.2010 to 25.11.2010. These two mobile phones were in constant touch, between 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. on 24.11.2010, and 8 calls were made. (vi) It is also established that the mobile phone, which was used by appellant Javed and mobile phone of the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma were in constant touch and talked on these mobile phones about 23 times on 24.11.2010 and about 18 times on 25.11.2010. (vii) It is also established that the deceased Sachin Gupta was last seen on 24.11.2010 with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed near Government Hospital, Kashipur and from that place these all the three persons went to Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar in a Tavera car. (vii) It is also established that the deceased Sachin Gupta was last seen on 24.11.2010 with appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma and appellant Javed near Government Hospital, Kashipur and from that place these all the three persons went to Hotel Taj Corbett, Ramnagar in a Tavera car. (viii) It is also established that the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal and appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma were seen together near Manpur Tiraha, Kashipur on 24.11.2010 at about 6:00 P.M. and at that time the appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma was talking on his mobile phone to someone. (ix) It is also established that the location of mobile phone of the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal was found near Manpur Tiraha, Kashipur. (x) It is also established that the informant received a call on his mobile phone from mobile phone of his son Sachin Gupta at about 6:00 P.M. on 24.11.2010 and at that time presence of appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma was also found at that place. (xi) It is also established that the appellant Akhil Kumar Agarwal showed the motorcycle of the deceased at the cycle stand of the Government Hospital, Kashipur to the informant in the night of 24.11.2010. (xii) According to the prosecution witness Dr. Ashok Kumar, the cause of death of the deceased Sachin Gupta was asphyxia due to the strangulation which could be caused by cord. (xiii) It is also established that the said cord was recovered on the identification of appellant Vimal Kumar Sharma. (xiv) It is also established that the said Tavera car and wallet with other articles of the deceased Sachin Gupta were recovered on the identification of the appellant Javed. (xv) It is also established that false statements had been given by the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is an additional link on the record against them, in the chain of circumstances. 96. The aforesaid chain of circumstances against the appellants is in conclusive nature. This is a complete chain which shows that in all human probabilities, the offence has been committed by the appellants. Therefore, having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, we concur with the trial court. It is not a fit case where impugned judgment requires any interference. 97. For the reasons, as discussed above, these all the three appeals are liable to be dismissed, and the same are accordingly dismissed.