JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 25.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali Camp Sumerpur, District Pali in Sessions Case No.18/2004: Under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. Under Section 397 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each. Under Section 3/25 Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. (All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently). 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentences awarded by the trial court, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 3. The facts involved in the case, as can be encompassed, are that on 30.12.2003 at about 10:30 a.m., accused Kuldeep Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Kulvinder Singh came to Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner and hired on rent a vehicle, Tata Spacio bearing Registration No.RJ 07 C 4731, owned by complainantMohan Ram, for going to Kota. At that time, complainant-Mohan Ram, his son Mota Ram and Suraj Singh (friend of Mota Ram) were standing at the Taxi Stand. Upon the aforementioned vehicle being hired on rent, Mota Ram, who himself was the driver and his friend Suraj Singh moved towards Kota alongwith three passengers i.e. the accused persons. 4. On 31.12.2003, in the morning at Thana Sojat City, a telephonic information was received that a vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 07 C 4731 has been seized alongwith illegal weapons and its occupants, but the information was silent about Mota Ram and his friend Suraj Singh. Thereafter, complainantMohan Ram immediately reached Birami in search of his son Mota Ram and his son's friend Suraj Singh, where on the way of Khimel near English Babool, he saw two blood stained dead bodies, which were of his son Mota Ram and his son's friend Suraj Singh. 5. Immediately, complainant-Mohan Ram on the same day i.e. 31.12.2003, reported the matter, from the site itself to the concerned police station. In the report, complainant-Mohan Ram narrated the whole incident and alleged that the passengers/accused persons shot dead Mota Ram and his friend Suraj Singh and looted the vehicle as well as took away their cash. 5. Immediately, complainant-Mohan Ram on the same day i.e. 31.12.2003, reported the matter, from the site itself to the concerned police station. In the report, complainant-Mohan Ram narrated the whole incident and alleged that the passengers/accused persons shot dead Mota Ram and his friend Suraj Singh and looted the vehicle as well as took away their cash. Complainant-Mohan Ram also informed that he would recognize the accused persons by faces as he saw them at the time of hiring of the vehicle Tata Spacio, at Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner. Complainant-Mohan Ram also narrated that he was also present at the Taxi Stand with his son Mota Ram and his son's friend Suraj Singh, and he saw the three accused persons and could exactly identify them. Complainant-Mohan Ram informed the police about the appearance and features of the accused persons. 6. On the basis of the aforementioned report, FIR No.165/03 was registered at Police Station, Sanderao for the offences under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), and accordingly, the investigation commenced. 7. During the course of investigation, Naksha Mauka, which was marked as Exhibit-P/6 was prepared in the presence of Mautbir witnesses, namely Chelaram, Mohanlal, Ganpat Singh etc., and the same was signed by the said witnesses. Blood stained soil and control soil samples were taken from the site, and were marked as Exhibit-P/7, and after signatures of Mautbir witnesses, the same were sent for FSL. From the site, a pocket diary, ExhibitP/8 was recovered, which had the name & other details of Sukhdeep Singh. During the investigation, in the presence of Mautbirs, Exhibit-P/9, regarding recovery of 3 c.m. long bullet, was prepared, and the said bullet was blood stained and soiled. The bodies were identified by complainant-Mohan Ram and the status of the belongings and injuries was also reported. 8. Prima facie, the site of murder and the examination of bodies indicated that the death of the deceased was homicidal caused by gun fires. The postmortem report of deceased Suraj Singh (Ex.P/17) and that of deceased Mota Ram (Ex.P/18) were also prepared on 01.01.2004 at Primary Health Centre, Sanderao, District Pali. As per the postmortem report of deceased Suraj Singh, his death had occurred due to excessive bleeding on account of the injuries on vital parts of the body, and the resultant cardiac respiratory failure. As per the postmortem report of deceased Suraj Singh, his death had occurred due to excessive bleeding on account of the injuries on vital parts of the body, and the resultant cardiac respiratory failure. The injuries included 1 cm deep hole in the chest. The postmortem report of deceased Mota Ram ExhibitP/18 indicated that his death had also occurred due to excessive bleeding and he had injuries also including 1 c.m. deep hole in the chest and fracture of ribs. During further investigation, boot marks and tyre marks of unknown vehicle were also picked up. 9. The arrest memo, which is Exhibit-P/49 reflected that accused-Kuldeep Singh was arrested on 31.12.2003 at 7:30 a.m. under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, and the arrest memo also indicated that the right side of his pant was blood stained. Vide Exhibit-P/50, a country made fire arm and four live bullets indicated to be of 8 m.m. k.f.00 were recovered during personal search of accused-Kuldeep Singh. Accused-Sukhdeep Singh was arrested vide arrest memo ExhibitP/48 on 31.12.2003 at 7:15 am and upon personal search being taken he was also found carrying an illegal country made fire arm with four live bullets mentioned to be of 8 m.m. k.f.00 which were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-P/59. 10. Exhibit-P/51 were the documents of Tata Spacio bearing registration No.RJ 07 C 4731, which included the receipts of toll plaza, registration certificate, pollution certificate, countrymade pistol, three live cartridges, sword, clothes etc. 11. Accused-Kulvinder Singh was arrested by the officers of Police Station, Sojat on 07.01.2004 vide Exhibit-P/49A and were lodged in Sub Jail Sojat. Thereafter, all the three accused persons were taken in custody in the present case by the concerned investigating officer on 09.01.2004 and sent to the Jail in Baparda (veiled) condition for preparation of the identification parade to be held in the presence of the concerned magistrate. In the presence of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, the recognition parade Exhibit P/13 was conducted and the three accused persons were correctly identified by Mohan Ram. 12. The license and diary of the deceased Mota Ram alongwith two fired cartridges were recovered at the instance of accused Kulvinder Singh subsequently, as he had hidden the same on the road itself, after burying them in the sand. 12. The license and diary of the deceased Mota Ram alongwith two fired cartridges were recovered at the instance of accused Kulvinder Singh subsequently, as he had hidden the same on the road itself, after burying them in the sand. The articles recovered were kept at the Malkhana, Police Station, Sanderao and marked as Exhibit-P/34 and the FSL report was sought for them, which is Exhibit-P/55 and Exhibit-P/69. Exhibit-55 is regarding the tyre marks and foot mould impressions lifted from the scene, while Exhibit 69 is the FSL report regarding the arms and ammunition. 13. After thorough investigation, the offences were found to be made out against accused Kuldeep Singh and Sukhdeep Singh under Sections 302, 397, 201 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, whereas accused Kulvinder Singh was booked under Sections 302, 397, 201 and 120B IPC, whereas against other accused Kala Singh, the investigation concluded for the offences made out under Sections 302, 397 and 120B IPC and the chargesheet as accordingly presented in the Court concerned. 14. The learned trial court examined 28 prosecution witnesses and 02 defence witnesses. The examination of the defence witnesses reflected that at the time when the identification parade of all the three accused persons was conducted in jail, no other prisoner had the same appearance or attire similar to that of three accused persons. 15. The accused persons, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent. However, the accused persons also indicated that the identification parade was not properly made as they were shown to the complainant at the police station before the test identification parade was held. 16. The learned trial court, during the course of trial, framed four points of determination, which are as follows: (i) Whether on 27-28.12.2003, at any time, the accused persons, under the garb of hatching conspiracy to murder Mota Ram s/o Mohan Ram and his friend Suraj Singh as well as looting the Tata Spacio vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 07 C 4731, came to Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner on 30.12.2003 and hired the said Tata Spacio for the purpose of going to Kota in the presence of Mohan Ram, Mota Ram and Suraj Singh, whereafter, they proceeded in the vehicle with Mota Ram and Suraj Singh ? (ii) Whether on 30.12.2003, in the evening or at night at Bikaner, the passengers accused murdered Mota Ram and Suraj Singh for the purpose of looting the Tata Spacio vehicle by shooting them, and their license and other possessions were taken away by the accused persons ? (iii) Whether the accused tried to destroy evidence from the site after murdering Suraj Singh and Mota Ram? (iv) Whether accused Kuldeep Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Kulvinder Singh killed Suraj Singh and Mota Ram by using unlicensed country made fire arms. 17. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and upon appreciating the material available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above by the impugned judgment which is assailed in the instant case. Hence this appeal. 18. Shri Pradeep Shah, Advocate representing the appellants submitted that the identification parade, which was the sole authentic connection reflected by the prosecution between the accused persons and the crucial evidence of Mohan Ram, was not conducted in accordance with law, and thus, since there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, the chain of circumstantial evidence remains inconclusive. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that since there are no eye witnesses, therefore, it is very doubtful that Mohan Ram would have seen the accused persons, and that, just because the accused persons were caught and booked under the Arms Act, they are being framed in the offence of murder, which was not committed by them. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the FSL report and the postmortem report indicated the murder, but there was no direct connection between the accused persons and the murder in question. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that it was not a foolproof case, as the evidence is merely circumstantial evidence, which does not connect one crime scene to another crime scene as the locations are imaginary and the accused persons are being framed only on the basis of pocket diary and the recovery of a license, whereas they were arrested under the provisions of Arms Act; however, they have been framed in the present case of blind murder, without setting up a foolproof case of murder against the accused persons. 22. 22. Shri N.S. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that it was an open and shut case, as from the first instance of engaging the taxi from the Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner till the loot and murder of the occupants, namely, Mota Ram and Suraj Singh, and then the conduct of the accused persons of running away to evade arrest, upon being caught in the same vehicle while being possession of the unauthorized and unlicensed local branded weapons, clearly show that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, which leave no scope of doubt regarding the murder having been committed by the accused persons. He thus, urged that the trial court was perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant as above. 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 24. The following undisputed facts emerge from the material available on record: (i) The chain of circumstantial evidence, as strongly supported by an eye witness to the initiation of the activity resulting into the crime i.e. hiring of the taxi from Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner bearing RJ 07 C 4731, is undisputed. Mohan Ram, Mota Ram and Suraj Singh were present together at the site and Mohan Ram clearly remembered the three accused persons, Kuldeep Singh, Kulvinder Singh and Sukhdeep Singh, who hired the taxti to go towards Kota, while the vehicle was being driven by Mota Ram and his friend Suraj Singh was accompanying him. (ii) Tata Spacio bearing registration No.RJ 07 C 4731 was independently caught in another incident, whereupon the accused persons were arrested alongwith arms and ammunition and also the case under the Arms Act was lodged against them. (iii) The independent arrest of the accused persons in the same vehicle alongwith arms and ammunition establishes that in the intervening period the offences of looting the vehicle and gruesome double murder were committed. (iv) The testimony of Mohan Ram during the identification parade is crucial and was conducted in presence of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali and Exhibit-P/13 has been prepared which clearly indicates that the accused persons were rightly identified by Mohan Ram, the father of deceased Mota Ram. The facts aforementioned were deliberated upon and they clearly go against the accused persons. 25. The facts aforementioned were deliberated upon and they clearly go against the accused persons. 25. The version given in the written report is consistently same throughout the investigation and at the time of the trial. The dates in the FIR, vehicle number, timing, location and everything is in accordance with the case of the prosecution. The defence witnesses do not give any account which could even bring a single crack in the prosecution case. 26. Pw-1 Roopa Ram, the Constable at the relevant time, was a witness to the arrest of the three accused persons from the Sojat Jail and supported the prosecution case. 27. The deposition of an independent witness Ramdayal PW-4, who was working as Munim at Laxmi Petrol Pump, Sojat City to the effect that in the night at about 9:00 pm, the vehicle Tata Spacio bearing registration No.RJ 07 C 4731 arrived at the Petrol Pump for purchase of diesel, and at that time, the witness was sitting in the office of petrol pump. The persons, reported to be three persons, took diesel worth Rs.1000/- from the pump, but thereafter, without making the necessary payment drove away from the petrol pump; upon which the information was given to the Sojat Police Station, which in turn, while conducting the search, confiscated Tata Spacio vehicle in possession of the three persons, out of which one managed to run from the site, who was caught later on. 28. Pw-3 Mohan Ram was a crucial witness and who is father of deceased Mota Ram. This witness rendered his evidence absolutely in tandem with the contents of the complaint lodged by him and from the initiation itself the narration is the same. This crucial witness deposed that the three accused persons came at Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner to hire the Tata Spacio vehicle owned by him, and thus, he alongwith Mota Ram and Suraj Singh were there when hiring of the vehicle was being negotiated by the three accused persons. The exact rate of hiring after the negotiation was put in statement and he also stated that his son Mota Ram and Suraj Singh thereafter left alongwith the vehicle and the three passengers. The accused persons have hired the vehicle for going towards Kota on the negotiated rates and conditions. He also connected the crime scene with confiscation of weapons and of accused at Sojat. The accused persons have hired the vehicle for going towards Kota on the negotiated rates and conditions. He also connected the crime scene with confiscation of weapons and of accused at Sojat. Complainant Mohan Ram had identified the bodies and was also the witness to all the other prosecution activities. The other witnesses devolved as per the prosecution. 29. Though PW-18 Virmaram has tried to create a shadow upon the identification parade by saying that while the accused persons were in the police station, Mohan Ram, was also there. But his version would not cast any aspersion upon the prosecution theory because at the first instance a written complaint at the site of the crime, even before coming to the police station, had the version of Mohan Ram that he had seen the three accused persons, at Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner, negotiating the rates of hiring the vehicle on rent; and thereafter, the vehicle Tata Spacio registration No.RJ 07 C 4731 was hired on rent. At that time, Mohan Ram alongwith his son Mota Ram and his son's friend Suraj Singh were present at the Taxi Stand. Thus, there is consistency in what Mohan Ram had informed about the accused persons right from the inception when they came to hire the vehicle in question. The recognition of the accused persons amongst 24 persons in a proper identification parade held in front of a judicial officer has full credit and cannot be doubted. 30. Pw-27 Brajlal, the then Investigating Officer deposed that he had investigated the site in question where the pocket diary and a blood stained bullet were found. He also supported the investigation and other necessary procedure having been completed including sample collection etc. He also deposed that though the incident had happened on 31.12.2003 but the accused persons, in connection with the offence of murder, were arrested after ten days, as they were already lodged in Sojat Jail pursuant to their arrest in connection with a case under the provisions of the Arms Act. 31. The evidence rendered by Shri Prithvi Raj Sharma, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali who was PW-28, clearly reflects that the identification parade of Kuldeep Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Kulvinder Singh vis-a-vis witness Mohan Ram was held at Bali Jail, and in front of him, Mohan Ram rightly identified the three accused persons. 31. The evidence rendered by Shri Prithvi Raj Sharma, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali who was PW-28, clearly reflects that the identification parade of Kuldeep Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Kulvinder Singh vis-a-vis witness Mohan Ram was held at Bali Jail, and in front of him, Mohan Ram rightly identified the three accused persons. The judicial officer also mentioned that during identification parade, there were 24 other persons alongwith accused persons, who were presented before Mohan Ram for the identification, and while excluding those 24 persons, the witness Mohan Ram clearly identified the three accused persons. Identification note Exhibit P/13 was signed by the judicial officer, witness Mohan Ram and also the accused persons. He further deposed that witness Mohan Ram had rightly identified the three accused persons, though due to bonafide human error name of Mohan Ram has been mentioned as Mohan Lal. 32. The postmortem report of Suraj Singh (Ex.P/17) and that of Mota Ram (Ex.P/18) clearly indicated death due to injuries caused including weapon injuries. 33. The FSL report Ex.P/55 indicates as follows: "Result of Examination (i) Shoe-sole impression reproduced in the moulds Q1 and Q2 tally with the sole of the shoe, exhibits K/L and K/R respectively. (ii) Shoe-sole impression reproduced in the moulds Q3 and Q4 tally with the sole of the shoe, exhibits J/L and J/R respectively. (iii) The tread design of tyres exhibits P/1 and R/1 are similar to each other and tread design reproduced in the mould Q5 is similar to the tread design of tyres exhibits P/1 and R/1 in respect of general shape, design and dimensions." The FSL report Ex.P/69 indicates as follows: "Result of Analysis 1. Two 8 mm/.315" country made pistols (W/1 & W/2) from packets 'A' and 'B' are serviceable firearms. 2. The examination of barrels residues indicate that submitted two 8 mm/.315" country made pistols (W/1 & W/2) had been fired. However, the definite time of their last fire could not be ascertained. 3. Based on stereo and comparison microscopic examination, it is the opinion that - (i) one 8 mm cartridge case (C/1) from packet 'N' has been fired from submitted 8 mm/.315" country made pistol (W/2) from packet 'B'. (ii) One 8 mm cartridge case (C/2) from packet 'N' has been fired from submitted 8 mm/.315" country made pistol (W/1) from packet 'A'. (ii) One 8 mm cartridge case (C/2) from packet 'N' has been fired from submitted 8 mm/.315" country made pistol (W/1) from packet 'A'. (iii) One 8 mm/.315" bullet (B/1) from packet 'D-1' has been fired from submitted 8 mm/.315" country made pistol (W/1) from packet 'A'. (iv) One 8 mm/.315" bullet (B/2) from packet 'D-2' has been fired from submitted 8 mm/.315" country made pistol (W/2) from packet 'B'. 4. Eight 8 mm cartridges (L/1 to L/8) from packets 'A' & 'B' are fireworthy ammunition. These 8 mm cartridges (L/1 to L/8) were also test fired in the laboratory." The FSL reports also confirmed the injuries and the manner in which they were inflicted. 34. In the aforesaid perspective, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and held the appellants responsible for committing murder of Suraj Singh and Mota Ram for the purpose of looting Tata Spacio Vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 07 C 4731. 35. This Court finds that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court is absolutely in tandem with the evidence rendered before it. The crucial evidence of Mohan Ram is consistent from the starting event of hiring of the Tata Spacio bearing No.RJ 07 C 4731 on rent from Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner, where he was present personally alongwith deceased Mota Ram and deceased Suraj Singh. The credible identification parade held in front of a judicial officer, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali clearly establishes the identity of the accused persons. 36. The arrest of the accused persons alongwith the illegal weapons, confiscation of the vehicle Tata Spacio vehicle, in connection with an independent incident punishable under the Arms Act brought the accused persons under the scanner of law fortifying the prosecution story that between hiring of the vehicle and getting caught in an independent case under the Arms Act, the crime was committed by the accused persons. Moreover, their consequential arrest under the Arms Act was independent of the earlier crime of committing murder and looting Tata Spacio vehicle, and thus, it gives credibility to the story of the prosecution and gives strength to the theory of the crime having been committed by the accused persons. 37. Moreover, their consequential arrest under the Arms Act was independent of the earlier crime of committing murder and looting Tata Spacio vehicle, and thus, it gives credibility to the story of the prosecution and gives strength to the theory of the crime having been committed by the accused persons. 37. The conclusion of the FSL report, Postmortem reports and Ballistic report clearly suggests that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete without leaving a single crack in the prosecution story. 38. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 39. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, while upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.