JUDGMENT : Shailendra Shukla, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated 28.11.2013 passed in Session Trial No. 10/2008, wherein the appellants have been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment in lieu of fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- 2 years RI 201 IPC 03 years RI Rs. 2,000/- 6 months RI 2. Precisely speaking, the prosecution story in short was that there were illicit relation between appellant no. 1-Narendra Singh Panwar with his cousin Sandhya @ Vidhya. In June 2007, Sandhya got engaged with deceased Arvind. Arvind had gifted her a mobile phone and both used to talk to each other after engagement, Appellant No. 1-Narendra Singh Panwar and appellant No. 2-Dilip Prajapati were friends and used to work in Ranbaxy Company. The appellants conspired to kill Arvind. In pursuance of this conspiracy, appellant No. 1-Narendra called Arvind on 08.09.2007 to Bhopal square situated at Dewas. When Arrived at the spot at about 8:00 pm, he met appellants there and they also sat on the same motorcycle of Arvind and moved towards Bhopal road. They were seen by Manish Choudhary (PW/27), Ajay Singh (PW/8) and Lokendra Singh (PW/21) and Rajeev Sharma (PW/9). They saw all three of them going in the same motorcycle. On the next day on 09.09.2007, village Chowkidar found body of a Arvind in a trench near Badichurlai road. The aforesaid information when received by the police station-Bhonrasa, a merg was instituted and Assistant Sub-Inspector, (ASI) Mr. H.A. Jafri (PW/25) prepared the spot map. Identification memo of the deceased was also executed. From the spot, blood soaked and normal soil were also seized, two shirt buttons, blood soaked handkerchief and hair strands were also seized and the dead body was sent for conducting the postmortem. Thereafter, FIR was instituted against unknown persons under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 3. The motorcycle driven by deceased was recovered on 10.09.2007. Thereafter, on 13.09.2007, appellant No. 1-Narendra was arrested and documents showing affair between him and Sandhya, the fiancee of deceased-Arvind were seized. On the basis of his memorandum, a knife was seized and his blood soaked clothes were also seized. Some injuries were also found on the person of appellant No. 1-Narendra. Thereafter, on 13.09.2007, appellant No. 1-Narendra was arrested and documents showing affair between him and Sandhya, the fiancee of deceased-Arvind were seized. On the basis of his memorandum, a knife was seized and his blood soaked clothes were also seized. Some injuries were also found on the person of appellant No. 1-Narendra. On 04.10.2007, appellant No. 2-Dilip was arrested and on his memorandum also, blood soaked knife was seized and a shirt was seized in which two buttons were missing, his clothes were also seized which were blood soaked and all these seized material were sent to FSL. 4. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. Charges were framed. The appellants abjured their guilt and in the statements made under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, appellant No. 1-Narendra pleaded alibi saying that at the time of incident, he was in his house with his family, whereas appellant No. 2-Dilip claimed to have no acquaintance with co-accused Narendra. 5. The trial Court examined 31 witnesses in all. The appellants claimed to adduce the defence evidence but no defence evidence was lead on their behalf. The appellants were ultimately convicted, as described earlier, in paragraph 1 of this order. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, has submitted that the last seen witnesses are not reliable, that statements made under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code of Ajay Singh (PW/8) were recorded very belatedly after fourteen days of the incident, that there is no matching of buttons found on the spot with the buttons of the shirt seized from appellant No. 2-Dilip, that another witness Rajeev Sharma (PW/9) in para 14 has stated that he did not know the deceased very well, that he had many opportunities to give statements and information of the factum of last seen, but he did not do so (paras 15, 16 and 17), that there was no motive in murdering the deceased, that prosecution has failed to determine the blood group of deceased and hence, it could not be proved that handkerchief found on the spot and that found on the clothes of appellant contained the blood group of deceased, that although the witnesses have given the evidence regarding call records, but there is no accompanying certificate under Section 65(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000, which is mandatory. On these grounds, acquittal has been sought. On these grounds, acquittal has been sought. 7. Learned counsel for the State was also heard who has referred to various paragraphs of the impugned judgment and has submitted that there is nothing to discredit the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 8. The question is, whether in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, the findings arrived at by the trial Court can be termed to be erroneous and whether the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed? 9. The evidence on record was perused. Karan Singh (PW/1) has stated that he found a dead body on the side of Churlai Road and he intimated the same to police-station-Bhonrasa. ASI, Mr. H.A. Jafri (PW/25) has stated that inquest was initiated by him and he prepared a body identification memo (PW/6). Shailendra Thakur (PW/2) is a relative of deceased Arvind who identified the body to be that of Arvind. The body was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Doctor B.K. Gupta (PW/5) along with two other Doctors. Dr. Gupta (PW/5) has exhibited postmortem report which is Ex. P/9 as per which 25 stab and incised wounds were found on the person of deceased-Arvind and all these injuries were ante mortem in nature and death was due to haemorrhagic shock resulting from excessive bleeding and as per his opinion, the death was homicidal in nature. 10. As far as the motive of committing murder of deceased-Arvind is concerned, the Investigating Officer (IO) Mr. Ashutosh Mishra 9 PW/31) had seized a purse from appellant no. 1-Narendra which contained two photographs of Sandhya (fiancee of deceased Arvind), a paper slip containing urdu couplets, two friendship belts and stickers. The word 'Sandhya my darling' were written behind the photographs. On paper slip, the following words were written: 'To my both of love not only on your birthday but because my every beat of Heart remember U. Because your remember is immortal in my Heart'. 11. In the urdu couplet slip also, word 'Sandhya and Narendra' were found to be written. In one of the friendship belt, a heart shaped symbol was stuck and on the belt, words "I love you Sandhya" were written. These words were written in another belt also. These items show love relations between Sandhya and Narendra (appellant No. 1). 11. In the urdu couplet slip also, word 'Sandhya and Narendra' were found to be written. In one of the friendship belt, a heart shaped symbol was stuck and on the belt, words "I love you Sandhya" were written. These words were written in another belt also. These items show love relations between Sandhya and Narendra (appellant No. 1). Ganesh (PW/18) has stated that he used to see Sandhya and Narendra going on the same motorcycle in a manner as if they were a couple. He had also seen both sitting side by side with their hands on each others' neck. The trial Court has considered these pieces of evidence in paragraphs 25 to 28 and has observed that the aforesaid pieces of evidence clearly indicate that Narendra and Sandhya were having an affair. 12. The witness Pawan (PW/3), Jitendra (PW/12), Sadhana (PW/14) and Dalpat (PW/15) are all relatives of deceased-Arvind and have stated that Sandhya and Arvind had been engaged in June 2007 and Arvind had gifted a mobile phone to Sandhya. 13. The Presiding Officer in para-30 of his judgment has rightly concluded that there existed a love triangle and it was the only reason for appellant No. 1-Narendra to nurse a grudge against deceased-Arvind. This itself could have been a valid motive for Narendra to do away with Arvind. 14. As far as appellant No. 2-Dilip Prajapati is concerned, Manish Choudhary (PW/27) had stated that appellant No. 1-Narendra Singh Panwar and appellant No. 2-Dilip Prajapati used to work in Ranbaxy Company and used to be seen together. Hence the motive of appellant No. 1-Narendra could have been shared by appellant No. 2-Dilip Prajapati. 15. As far as last seen theory is concerned, the witnesses of last seen are Ajay Singh (PW/8), Rajeev Sharma (PW/9) and Manish Choudhary (PW/27). 16. Ajay Singh (PW8) has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 8.9.2007, he was standing near Bhopal Square. He states that he resides at Ganga Nagar, Dewas and was proceeding towards his village on motorcycle and had stopped on way to purchase cigarette. At that moment he saw deceased Arvind, accused Narendra and Dilip who were going on motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by Arvind. Arvind wished the witness which caught his attention. 17. Rajeev Sharma (PW9) has stated that on 8.9.2007, he was having tea near Nevri Phata. At that moment he saw deceased Arvind, accused Narendra and Dilip who were going on motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by Arvind. Arvind wished the witness which caught his attention. 17. Rajeev Sharma (PW9) has stated that on 8.9.2007, he was having tea near Nevri Phata. He saw Arvind riding a motorcycle at around 8.00-8.30 pm. He also saw the appellants seated on same motorcycle behind Arvind. He could identify these persons in the headlight of truck. The witness has stated that he asked Arvind as to where he was going to and Arvind replied that he had some work ahead. As per this witness, he was a property broker and was going towards Dewas and had stopped for taking tea in the midway when he came across Arvind and the appellants. 18. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that statements of Ajay Singh was recorded by police 14 days after the incident and that he is a family friend of Arvind and his statements are not reliable. The same ground of belated recording of statement was taken before the trial court, which in para 42 has dealt with this objection and has observed that no question was asked from the Investigating Officer as to why the statements were recorded after 14 days. 19. As far as the evidence of Rajeev Sharma (PW9) is concerned, learned counsel has drawn Court's attention to paragraphs 14 to 17 of this witness. In para 14 the witness has stated that Arvind was not one of his best friends or very well known acquaintance, but in para 16 he states that after demise of Arvind he had gone to the house of Arvind for expressing condolence and he wanted to tell the family members about the last seen incident, but due to bereavement in the house of Arvind he could not tell. In para 17 he states that he had even gone to the police station Bhonrasa twice for narrating the incident, but he could not meet the SHO because the SHO was not present in the police station and in para 18 he states that on 5.10.2007 again he went to police station and had met Town Inspector Ashutosh Mishra. In para 17 he states that he had even gone to the police station Bhonrasa twice for narrating the incident, but he could not meet the SHO because the SHO was not present in the police station and in para 18 he states that on 5.10.2007 again he went to police station and had met Town Inspector Ashutosh Mishra. In para 20 he admits that the brother of deceased, Pawan had come to his house and asked him as to why he was holding back the information from Town Inspector and he had explained the reason that he had gone to the police station, but Town Inspector was not available and soon thereafter he went police station and gave statements. 20. From the statement of this witness it only appears that he could not muster courage to intimate the family members and the police in the initial few days of the incident. However, this cannot be considered to be unnatural because normally a person would not want to own up the burden of standing up as a witness in such heinous case involving murder. Hence, the evidence of this witness cannot be termed to be a concocted story. 21. Manish Choudhary (PW27) has also stated that he knew Arvind since 1999 and on 8.9.2007 at around 8 o'clock in the night the witness was awaiting his friend near Bhopal Square when he saw Arvind and the two appellant coming on motorcycle and next day he came to know that Arvind has been murdered. The only contradiction in his statements and police statement Exhibit D/4 is that in Exhibit D/4, it has not been mentioned that witness was waiting for his friend at Bhopal Square. This omission in itself is not a major omission and the trial court has also in para 44 has relied upon the evidence of this witness whose statements have been recorded by police without delay. This witness is barely an acquaintance of deceased and had no specific affinity to him or his family members. 22. Thus, it is rightly found proved that the deceased was last seen with the appellants prior to discovery of his dead body. 23. The motorcycle which Arvind was driving belonged to Satish Jat (PW4). This witness has stated that he and Arvind used to work together for LIC. Arvind also had a computer shop. 22. Thus, it is rightly found proved that the deceased was last seen with the appellants prior to discovery of his dead body. 23. The motorcycle which Arvind was driving belonged to Satish Jat (PW4). This witness has stated that he and Arvind used to work together for LIC. Arvind also had a computer shop. As per this witness Arvind called him up and requested him to lend him his motorcycle. Arvind left his own two wheeler at the shop of Satish Jat and took the motorcycle of the witness saying that he was going with his brother-in-law and would come back 2-3 hours later. In para 6 of his evidence he states that Arvind had told him that there is some mechanical problem in his own motorcycle and hence he had taken the motorcycle of the witness. As per this witness Arvind had given him the keys of his own vehicle and Rs. 4500/- also and had requested the witness to leave both these items at the house of Arvind. The motorcycle which Arvind took from the witness was bearing registration No. M.P.-41-MB-1835. 24. Shailendra Singh (PW10) has corroborated the statements of Satish Jat (PW4). This witness is also LIC agent and states that when the phone call of Arvind came to Satish Jat this witness was sitting in the shop of Satish Jat along with Lokendra Singh Thakur. As per this witness, Arvind had come and taken the motorcycle of Satish and had given his own vehicle to Satish. This witness also states that Arvind had told Satish Jat that his own vehicle was having some mechanical problem. These statements have further been corroborated by Lokendra (PW21). This witness is related to appellant Narendra. Although in few material particulars he has turned hostile but not in respect of the statements made as above. Thus, it is proven from these witnesses that Narendra Singh had taken away the motorcycle of Satish Jat bearing registration No. M.P.-41-MB-1835 and it is proven from the last seen witnesses that appellant were last seen with the deceased Arvind. 25. Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) is the Investigating Officer has stated that during investigation he had seized motorcycle bearing registration No. MP.-41-MB-1835 from the frontage of Natraj Hotel and on the motorcycle tank there were some stains resembling blood. These stains were collected in a cotton and Exhibit P/27 is the seizure memo. 25. Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) is the Investigating Officer has stated that during investigation he had seized motorcycle bearing registration No. MP.-41-MB-1835 from the frontage of Natraj Hotel and on the motorcycle tank there were some stains resembling blood. These stains were collected in a cotton and Exhibit P/27 is the seizure memo. As per FSL report which is Exhibit P/40, the cotton swabs bearing Article 'T' was found to contain blood. This witness further states that on the basis of memorandum of Narendra Exhibit P/32, a knife was seized from the field at the instance of Narendra as per Exhibit P/31. As per FSL report Exhibit P/40, the knife seized from Narendra which is Article 'K' also carried traces of blood. On 15.9.2007, a green coloured full pant, blue checked shirt, blue baniyan and yellow handkerchief were also seized from the house of Narendra as per Exhibit P/34. These clothes have been Articled as 'L', 'M', 'N' and 'O'. In FSL report Exhibit p/40 all four articles were found to carry human blood. The same witness further states that memorandum of Dilip was also recorded by him which is Exhibit P/11 and a knife was seized as per Exhibit P/12 and thereafter white coloured terry-cot shirt which had square prints and a gray coloured full pant was also seized from Dilip as per Exhibit P/13. The knife is Articled as 'P', half shirt as Articles 'Q' and full pant is Articled as 'R'. As per FSL report on these articles, human blood was found. 26. The FSL report Ex. P.40 shows that full pant Article 'L', half shirt Article 'M' and Banyan Article 'N' seized from appellant Narendra had human blood traces belonging to blood group 'B'. The full pant Articled 'R' of accused Dilip also carried 'B' group human blood. The blood socked handkerchief found on the spot near the dead body is Article D/2 and this article was also found to contain human blood traces and the blood group was also blood group 'B'. 27. Thus it is proved that there was one commonality of blood group between the clothes of both the appellants and the handkerchief found on the spot. 28. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not proved that the blood group of the deceased was also of 'B' group. This submission is not acceptable. 27. Thus it is proved that there was one commonality of blood group between the clothes of both the appellants and the handkerchief found on the spot. 28. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not proved that the blood group of the deceased was also of 'B' group. This submission is not acceptable. Onus now shifted upon the accused persons to show that their own blood group was not of 'B' group. The Supreme Court in the case of A. Raghavamma vs. A. Chenchamma in AIR 1964 S.C. 136 has held as under:- "1 to 12 ....... There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. ....." In the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple reported in AIR 2003 SC 4548 , the Hon'ble Apex observed as under: "There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which, never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiffs title". This onus has not been discharged by them. Hence, no other conclusion can be arrived at apart from that the blood group 'B' found on the clothes of the appellants and on the handkerchief was of the blood of the deceased. 29. Further, shirt which was seized from Dilip as per Exhibit P/13 and on which human blood was found was also having two missing buttons. Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) and ASI H.A. Jafri (PW25) have stated that on 9.9.2007, he had found two white coloured buttons from the spot near the dead body and seized the same as per Exhibit P/8. 30. Further, shirt which was seized from Dilip as per Exhibit P/13 and on which human blood was found was also having two missing buttons. Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) and ASI H.A. Jafri (PW25) have stated that on 9.9.2007, he had found two white coloured buttons from the spot near the dead body and seized the same as per Exhibit P/8. 30. Learned counsel for the appellant Dilip has argued that prosecution has not matched the buttons found on the spot with the buttons which were stitched on the shirt of Dilip which was seized. He submits that it was the duty of the prosecution. Regarding this submission the position is that once it was found that the shirt seized from Dilip did not have two buttons and when it was also found that two buttons had been seized from the spot where the dead body was found, the onus had shifted on Dilip to show that the buttons found on the spot were not torn off from the shirt which was seized from him. 31. Learned counsel for appellant Dilip did not insist that the aforesaid buttons found on the spot be produced before the Court and the same be matched with buttons stitched on the shirt of Dilip, which has been seized from him. Thus, the onus has not been discharged by Dilip and it appears that at the time when appellants assaulted the deceased a scuffle ensued and the buttons of shirt of Dilip got torn off and fell on the spot. 32. Appellant Narendra was also found to have suffered injuries. Dr. Arti Choudhary (PW6) has examined Narendra Singh and has found 3 stitched wounds on the first finger of the right hand and on the second finger of the same hand. He had also suffered injury on his right palm, there were number of abrasions on his back and a contusion below his left eye. These injuries which were found on the fingers were ruptured incised wounds. Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) has referred to these injuries in Exhibit P/29, which is arrest memo. Neither Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) nor ASI H.A. Jafri (PW25) have been given suggestions in the cross examination that Narendra suffered such injuries due to being beaten up by the police. Even otherwise, such beating by police would not result in incised wounds. 33. Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) has referred to these injuries in Exhibit P/29, which is arrest memo. Neither Ashutosh Mishra (PW31) nor ASI H.A. Jafri (PW25) have been given suggestions in the cross examination that Narendra suffered such injuries due to being beaten up by the police. Even otherwise, such beating by police would not result in incised wounds. 33. Thus, it is quite clear that the deceased had given stiff resistance to both the accused persons, as a result of which accused/appellant Narendra received several injuries and shirt buttons of appellant Dilip were torn off and fell on the spot. There are call records as well in this matter, but it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the prosecution that such call records are not accompanied with the mandatory certificate required under Section 65B of I.T. Act and hence such call records are not admissible in evidence. 34. Even taking into account that such call records may not be read in evidence, the prosecution has been able to prove the motive, the last seen theory and presence of same blood group on the clothes of appellants and the handkerchief found on the spot which presumably was of the deceased. Meaning thereby, that the blood stains on the clothes of the appellants were that of the deceased. Thus a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant has been established by the prosecution and the trial Court has rightly held that such circumstances formed a complete chain which point out the involvement of the appellants in killing Arvind. The principles of Apex Court propounded in Sharad Birdi Chand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 S.C. 1622 have been referred by the Presiding Officer in his judgment. Applying these principles in the facts of the present case the only conclusion is that of culpability and complete involvement of none other than the appellants in killing Arvind. 35. In the case of Anjan Kumar Sarma vs. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359 , it has been laid down as under:- (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 35. In the case of Anjan Kumar Sarma vs. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359 , it has been laid down as under:- (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "a must" or "should" and not "may be" established; (2) The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable or any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) They should execute every possible hypothesis except of one to be proved; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocent of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 36. The manner in which both the appellants called over Arvind and stabbed him to death show that they had already come prepared to eliminate him. Thus, appellants were having intention to commit murder of Arvind and they caused as many as 25 stab injuries on Arvind which also proves their intention to murder him. The body of the deceased was found in a field showing that the appellants had done so in order to destroy the evidence of murder and therefore, they were also liable to be punished under Section 201 of IPC. 37. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 and 201 of IPC by the trial Court stands affirmed along with the default stipulations are also affirmed. The sentences imposed upon them are also affirmed. The appeal consequently stands dismissed. 38. The disposal of property seized would be as per para 83 of the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 39. A copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the concerned trial court for compliance. 40. A copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.