JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh Camp Begun in Sessions Case No. 64/2011: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302 Or 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- 06 Months' S.I. Section 201 Or 201/34 IPC 05 Years' R.I. Rs. 3,000/- 03 Months' S.I. Section 397 Or 397/34 IPC 07 Years' R.I. - - Section 404 Or 404/34 2 Years' R.I. Rs. 1,000/- 03 Months' S.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Since both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment, the same are being decided together. 4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the present appeals are noted herein below: 5. The complainant Rameshwar Lal Gurjar (PW-19) lodged a written report (Ex. P/23) to the SHO, Police Station Begun, District Chittorgarh on 11.06.2011 at 08.15 pm. alleging inter alia that on the same day, he was at his hotel situated at Joganiya Mataji. In the evening at about 6 O' Clock, some villagers of the village Umar told him that a dead body was lying near the mines on the way towards Menal. Upon this, he and few villagers went there and saw the dead body of a man wearing white pant and brownish sky blue stripped shirt, lying near the Kaccha way between the village Umar to Menal. The body was emitting foul smell. Tyre marks of a four-wheeled vehicle were visible near the dead body. It was alleged that the unidentified man appeared to have been murdered by some unknown persons and the dead body had been thrown there. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 174/2011 (Ex. P/61) came to be registered at the Police Station Begun for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer Vikram Singh (PW-41), C.I., SHO, P.S. Begun proceeded to the place of incident and recorded the statements of various persons. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 174/2011 (Ex. P/61) came to be registered at the Police Station Begun for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer Vikram Singh (PW-41), C.I., SHO, P.S. Begun proceeded to the place of incident and recorded the statements of various persons. The deadbody was identified to be of one Prakash Chandra Jat, taxi driver of a Maruti Eeco vehicle and was subjected to postmortem and thereafter the same was handed over to Mangilal son of Pratap Jat (elder uncle of the deceased) for cremation. The site was inspected and the site inspection plan (Ex. P/1) was prepared. Shri Bheru Singh father of the deceased Prakash Chandra had already lodged a Missing Person Report at the Police Station Kunwalia (Ex. P/68) on 11.06.2011. It came to light during the investigation that the two accused appellants had approached the deceased at the Bus Stand Kunwalia on 10.06.2011 and took his Maruti Eeco Car No. RJ-27-TA-2430 on hire. Though the witnesses did not name the two accused persons who had taken the car number, still, acting on the source and other reliable information’s, the I.O. proceeded to arrest the accused Jeetu @ Jitendra on 11.07.2011 at 04.30 pm vide arrest memo (Ex. P/8). The accused Sanwariya @ Sanwar Lal was also arrested on the same day at 04.40 pm vide arrest memo (Ex. P/9). The accused Jitendra Pratap was found operating the Nokia 1600 Mobile instrument suspected to be of the deceased which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/7). Likewise, a mobile instrument of Nokia 1650 make in possession of the accused Jitendra Pratap was also seized from the accused Sanwariya vide seizure memo (Ex. P/10). Both the accused gave information’s to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and in furtherance thereof, the place of incident was inspected. The original number plates of the Maruti Eeco car looted from the deceased were removed and the car bearing fabricated number plates was recovered in furtherance of the information provided by the accused Jitendra Pratap to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/21). The original number plates bearing registration No. RJ-27-TA-2430 which had been removed by the accused, were recovered in furtherance of the information (Ex. P/21). The original number plates bearing registration No. RJ-27-TA-2430 which had been removed by the accused, were recovered in furtherance of the information (Ex. P/73) provided by the accused Sanwariya to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/17). Two witnesses who had seen the accused approaching the deceased and taking his car on hire namely Shri Madhusudan (PW-7) and Shri Sunil Das Vaishnav (PW-21) were summoned to participate in the test identification proceedings and both of them correctly identified the accused in these proceedings. After concluding investigation, the I.O. proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 397, 404 read with Section 34 IPC. As the offences under Sections 302 and 397 were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed and then transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, Camp Begun for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 or 302/34, 201 or 201/34, 397 or 397/34 and 404 or 404/34 IPC. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 45 witnesses and exhibited 123 documents to prove its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, denied the same but chose not to lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence these appeals. 7. Smt. R.R. Kanwar learned counsel representing the appellant Sanwariya and Shri T.R.S. Sodha, learned counsel representing the appellant Jitendra @ Jeetu, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case as against the accused appellants is false and fabricated. There is no direct evidence on the record so as to connect the appellants with the alleged crime. The circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution is flimsy and unbelievable. The evidence of recoveries is totally fabricated. None of prosecution witnesses stated that the mobile instruments which were recovered from the possession of the accused, were owned by the deceased Prakash Chandra. The circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution is flimsy and unbelievable. The evidence of recoveries is totally fabricated. None of prosecution witnesses stated that the mobile instruments which were recovered from the possession of the accused, were owned by the deceased Prakash Chandra. Madhusudan (PW-7) the lemonade seller who was present at the bus stand, could not identify the accused in his sworn testimony and was declared hostile. The evidence of the other identifying witness Sunil Vaishnav (PW-21) totally unreliable because he kept silent for significant period of time and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after a significant delay. They further urged that the case set up by the prosecution that the original number plates of the Maruti Eeco Car belonging to the deceased were removed; fabricated plates were fixed thereupon; that the original number plates were recovered in furtherance of the information provided by the accused Sanwariya to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that the car was recovered in furtherance of the information provided by the accused Jitendra @ Jeetu, is totally false and fabricated. They contended that the prosecution made no endeavour to lawfully prove the information’s allegedly provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in furtherance whereof, recoveries were shown to be effected during the evidence of the I.O. PW-41 Vikram Singh. They fervently contended that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the flimsy and unreliable evidence of Sunil Vaishnav (PW-21) the witness who claimed to have seen the accused engaging the taxi of the deceased some time before the alleged loot and murder. They thus urged that the impugned judgment is bad in facts as well as in law and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges by accepting their appeals. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He contended that the prosecution led ample evidence to prove that the accused were seen by the witnesses Madhusudan (PW-7) and Sunil Vaishnav (PW-21) at the bus stand and were identified to be the persons who had engaged the taxi of the deceased just before the loot and murder. This was the last instance of the deceased being seen alive. Thereafter, his deadbody was recovered. This was the last instance of the deceased being seen alive. Thereafter, his deadbody was recovered. When the deadbody was recovered, the car of the deceased was not seen nearby and had been taken away. The car's original number plates were removed and replaced by fabricated ones so as to conceal its identity. The original number plates were concealed by the accused Sanwariya @ Sanwar Lal after putting white paint thereupon. However, the I.O. could discern the actual number by looking at the plates. The looted car was recovered lying concealed by the accused Jeetu outside his house with the original number plates having been replaced by fabricated number plates. The recovery was effected after more than one month of the incident and nothing was portrayed by the defence that the car's location was known at any earlier point of time. The informations provided by the accused as well as the procedure of recoveries has been properly proved in the evidence of the I.O. The trivial discrepancies in the statements of the motbir witnesses would not derogate from the evidence of the I.O. regarding the seizure more particularly because, no oblique motive has been attributed to the I.O. for tainting the investigation so as to falsely implicate the accused in this case. The witness Sunil Vaishnav (PW-21) had no cause to falsely identify the accused as the persons who had engaged the taxi of the deceased. The proceedings of test identification of the accused by Sunil Vaishnav have been duly proved by the Judicial Officer (PW-44) Shivani Bhatnagar. The defence taken by the accused that they had been shown to the witnesses before the identification proceedings were carried out, is totally unsubstantiated. He thus contended that as the chain of circumstances points invariably towards the guilt of the accused and the same is complete in all respects, the trial court was perfectly justified in holding the accused guilty of the offences. On these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have heard the arguments advanced at Bar; minutely perused the impugned judgment and have carefully re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 10. Manifestly, the case is of blind murder. It was the investigating officer's job to solve the case and in this process, he seems to have got clues regarding involvement of the accused appellants in the murder. 9. We have heard the arguments advanced at Bar; minutely perused the impugned judgment and have carefully re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 10. Manifestly, the case is of blind murder. It was the investigating officer's job to solve the case and in this process, he seems to have got clues regarding involvement of the accused appellants in the murder. The clues were followed and ultimately the I.O. could manage to nab the two accused persons who were kept Baparda at the time of their arrest. The two witnesses Madhusudan (PW-7) and Sunil Vaishnav (PW-21) who had stated during investigation that they had seen the two accused and could identify them, were summoned to participate in the test identification parade and both of them, correctly identified the accused appellants as the persons who had come to the bus stand and engaged the taxi of the deceased Prakash Chandra. Thus, this material piece of evidence gives rise to a significant inference that the accused appellants were lastly seen in the company of the deceased who was not seen alive thereafter. The unidentified deadbody was recovered near the mines on the way towards Menal. Shri Rameshwar Gurjar (PW-19) lodged the report (Ex. P/23) regarding the unidentified deadbody whereupon, the FIR came to be lodged. Thereafter, Mangilal (PW-2) identified the deadbody to be of his brother's son Prakash Chandra. By that point of time, the I.O. had been apprised of the fact that the taxi of Prakash Chandra had been stolen. Tyre marks had been noticed near the deadbody. These facts gave rise to a strong inference that the taxi of Prakash Chandra was looted and he was done to death in a violent manner and his deadbody was dumped near the mines on the way towards Menal from where, it was recovered. The motive behind the murder was unquestionably to loot the vehicle of the deceased. After looting the vehicle, the accused changed its number plates as is evident from the recovery memo of the vehicle. The witness Sarfaraj (PW-40) gave evidence to the effect that Jeetu called him on 12.06.2011 and asked him for assistance to sell off a vehicle. The appellant Jeetu has not claimed in defence that he had any other vehicle which he desired to sell. No significant cross-examination was made from Sarfaraj which can detract from the evidentiary worth of his testimony. The appellant Jeetu has not claimed in defence that he had any other vehicle which he desired to sell. No significant cross-examination was made from Sarfaraj which can detract from the evidentiary worth of his testimony. The fact that on the very next day after the crime was committed, the accused Jeetu tried to sell off a vehicle, gives rise to a strong inference pointing towards his inculpable mental state. 11. Shri Mangilal (PW-1) gave evidence to the effect that the Maruti Eeco Car bearing No. 2430 owned by Suresh Nai was being used as a taxi by the deceased Prakash. 12. Badrilal son of Shri Kaluji (PW-2) also gave similar evidence. 13. Badrilal son of Shri Nathuji (PW-4) stated that Prakash took the Eeco car No. RJ-27-TA-2430 from his house on 10.06.2011 and went to the bus stand Kunwalia. 14. The witness Dinesh Verma (PW-8) stated that he purchased the car No. RJ-27-TA-2430 from Sadiq Mohd. and gave the same to Suresh Chandra. Suresh Chandra engaged Prakash son of Bherulal Jat as a driver on this vehicle. 15. Akbar Mohd. (PW-10) stated that both the accused, who were previously known to him, came to his house on 10.06.2011 in a white coloured Eeco car. No significant cross-examination was made from the witness. 16. Barkat Hussain (PW-13) was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Begun. He was assigned to look out for the suspects during investigation of the FIR No. 174/2011. He met Akbar who gave him clues about involvement of the accused appellants in murder. Thereupon, the accused Jeetu was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P/8). 17. Bherulal (PW-20) being the father of the deceased stated that his son Prakash used to operate a white coloured car RJ-27-2430 at the Bus Stand Kunwalia. He left the house at 7 O' Clock in the morning on 10.06.2011 and did not return. They went to the Bus Stand and made inquiry from the lemonade seller who told that on the previous day at about 11.00 to 11.30, two persons had engaged and taken the taxi of Prakash on hire. 18. Sunil Vaishnav (PW-21) who himself is a taxi driver and used to operate his taxi from bus stand Kunwalia, stated that Prakash used to operate the Maruti Eeco Car No. RJ-27-TA-2430. Two persons came to the bus stand and made enquiry to engage a taxi. 18. Sunil Vaishnav (PW-21) who himself is a taxi driver and used to operate his taxi from bus stand Kunwalia, stated that Prakash used to operate the Maruti Eeco Car No. RJ-27-TA-2430. Two persons came to the bus stand and made enquiry to engage a taxi. Prakash and the witness approached these persons who intended to engage the car for going to Bhilwara. The witness successfully identified both the accused in the test identification proceedings as well as in his sworn testimony. Despite prolonged cross-examination, the witness could not be shaken from his stance regarding he having identified the accused in the Test Identification proceedings as being the persons who engaged the Taxi car of Prakash Chandra. Shri Chundawat laid much stress on the fact that the statement of this witness was recorded by the I.O. after significant delay. However, on a perusal of the evidence of this witness, we find that not a single question was put to him in this regard during cross-examination and hence, there is no reason for us to cast any doubt on the evidence of this witness on the aspect that he saw and identified the two accused appellants while they were engaging the taxi of the deceased. Thus, it is well and truly established that the accused appellants engaged the taxi of the deceased and he was lastly seen in their company before the deadbody was recovered. Manifestly thus, by virtue of Section 106 read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act, burden of explaining as to how Prakash Chandra met with homicidal death and the manner in which his taxi car went missing, would definitely shift on to the accused appellants. They failed to offer any explanation in this regard. It may be reiterated that soon after the incident, the accused Jeetu made an attempt to dispose off the vehicle with the aid of Sarfaraj (PW-40). 19. The looted car with its number plates replaced with fake ones was recovered in furtherance of the information (Ex. P/72) provided by the accused Jeetu to the I.O. Shri Vikram Singh (PW-41). We have carefully perused the evidence of Vikram Singh and find that he has given cogent and clinching evidence pertaining to the proceedings of recovery. 19. The looted car with its number plates replaced with fake ones was recovered in furtherance of the information (Ex. P/72) provided by the accused Jeetu to the I.O. Shri Vikram Singh (PW-41). We have carefully perused the evidence of Vikram Singh and find that he has given cogent and clinching evidence pertaining to the proceedings of recovery. The accused Sanwariya also gave an information to the I.O. regarding concealment of the original number plates of the car which had been removed and concealed in his rental house. This information was exhibited as memorandum (Ex. P/73). The car was recovered lying covered under a tarpaulin near the house of Jeetu and was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/21). The original number plates of the car were recovered from the house of accused Sanwariya in furtherance of the information provided by him to the I.O. and were seized vide memo (Ex. P/17). Upon a minute re-appraisal of the evidence of the investigating officer, the Panch Witnesses and the relevant seizure memos, we are satisfied that the informations provided by the accused and the incriminating recoveries made in pursuance of such informations were duly proved by cogent and clinching evidence. The accused namely Jeetu and Sanwariya failed to offer any explanation for being in possession of the car of the deceased and the original number plates of the car respectively. These recoveries were effected soon after the incident and thus, presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act has definitely to be raised against the accused persons. As they failed to offer any explanation for being seen while engaging the taxi car of the deceased; since the deceased was murdered soon thereafter; and as the car and its original number plates were recovered at the instance of the accused Jeetu and Sanwariya respectively; these incriminating links form a complete chain of circumstances pointing invariably towards the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the guilt of anyone else. 20. Dr. Rakesh Mundra (PW-37) deposed that he was a member of the Medical Board constituted at the CHC, Begun and carried out postmortem upon the body of the deceased Shri Prakash Chandra. The board noticed a wound admeasuring 24 cms. X 14 cms. under the right temporal to occipital area. Another injury admeasuring 8 cms. X 30 cms. was noticed upon the neck. There was a haematoma on the temporal occipital region. The board noticed a wound admeasuring 24 cms. X 14 cms. under the right temporal to occipital area. Another injury admeasuring 8 cms. X 30 cms. was noticed upon the neck. There was a haematoma on the temporal occipital region. The brain membrane was damaged. There was a fracture in the C1 and C2 vertebrae. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No significant cross-examination was made from the doctor. 21. Thus, it has conclusively been established by the prosecution that the death of Shri Prakash was homicidal in nature and that the appellants herein were perpetrators of the crime. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved the entire chain of circumstances pointing invariably towards the guilt of the accused. The links in the chain of circumstances are complete in all aspects and are consistent with the guilt of the appellants and inconsistent with the guilt of anyone else. 22. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial court was perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences charged. The impugned judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh Camp Begun does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal, warranting interference. 23. As a result, we find no merit in these appeals which are hereby dismissed. 24. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith. 25. A copy of this order be placed in each file.