JUDGMENT : A.J.DESAI, J. 1. By way of the captioned appeals by each of the appellants, they have challenged the judgement and order dated 03/02/2015 in Sessions Case No.15 of 2012 (Old Sessions Case No.24 of 2012) by learned 3rd Additional (Ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Kalol, District: Gandhinagar, by which, they have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 302, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed to each of the appellants, is stated hereinbelow: The appellant – original accused No.2 – Jitendragiri Mahendragiri Goswami has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is awarded. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of three months is awarded. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The appellant –original accused No.3 – Rajubhai Virkumar Yadav, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is awarded. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of three months is awarded. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The appellant – original accused No.1 – Dashrathgiri Shankargiri Goswami has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is awarded. The appellant – original accused No.1 – Dashrathgiri Shankargiri Goswami has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is awarded. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of three months is awarded. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The appellant – original accused No.5 – Rajiv Ramkaran Jatav has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is awarded. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(BA) of the Arms Act and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month is awarded. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The appellant – original accused No.4 – Rajubhai Kanubhai Patel has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof payment of fine, simple imprisonment of one month is awarded. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. Rajiv Ramkaran Jatav, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1048 of 2015 has absconded from 13/06/2017 when he was released on temporary bail whereas Patel Rajubhai Kanubhai, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1284 of 2015 has absconded from 09/04/2019 when he was released on temporary bail. However, learned advocate appearing for each appellant has proceeded with the appeals and argued the matters. 3. All the appeals, which have been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, came to be admitted in the year 2015 by different Division Bench, however since the same is arising from the common judgement dated 03/02/2015 in Sessions Case No.15 of 2012, all the appeals were tagged together and learned Trial Court has prepared a common paper book in all the appeals and has supplied record and proceedings of the aforesaid sessions case. 4. Respondents- State authorities are represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah in all the appeals. 5. Short facts, arising from the record, are as under: That one Hiteshkumar Jayantilal Patel, resident of Village: Paliyad of Taluka: Kalol of District: Gandhinagar disclosed before the Police Inspector of Kalol Taluka Police Station that on 29/09/2011 when he was present at his own home, in afternoon at around 14:00 hours, he was informed by somebody that he has seen a Tavera car having registration No.GJ-1 HL 212, near field of one Dashrath Manilal Patel on the road in the sim of Village: Paliyad and dead-body of a man is lying therein. He along with his friend went to the place where a car was lying and found that the face of man was covered with car seat cover and was found having numerous knife blows and they found that the deceased was not from their village and therefore, he informed outpost police station of village: Nardipur. The authority found driving license in the name of Somaji Mathurji, Village: Karodiya, Taluka: Sanand, District: Ahmedabad. The police authority also found sale deed from the car wherein the value of agricultural land was shown as Rs.50,00,000/- and an amount to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- was received by the seller on 15/09/2009. The authority found driving license in the name of Somaji Mathurji, Village: Karodiya, Taluka: Sanand, District: Ahmedabad. The police authority also found sale deed from the car wherein the value of agricultural land was shown as Rs.50,00,000/- and an amount to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- was received by the seller on 15/09/2009. Accordingly, FIR at Exh-198 was recorded. One Police Inspector of Kalol Taluka Police Station namely Mansinhbhai Devjibhai Chaudhary, who has been examined as PW-51 Exh-197, having received vardhi from the PSO about deadbody lying in a car at the scene of offence, he and ASI of Nardipur outpost also reached there. After verifying and comparing photograph referred in the license and face of the dead-body and after verifying the dead-body of the deceased Somaji Mathurji Thakore by his son Alpeshji Somaji Thakor, who has been examined as PW-32 at Exh-140, the investigation begun thereafter. As per the case of the witnesses of the prosecution, since the details were referred in the sale deed, which was found from the car and since as witness to the execution of sale deed, which was found from the car, as shown as D.S. Goswami, who is original resident of Palodiya village and the land for which, the transaction was referred in the said sale deed, and after some primary investigation, Dashrathgiri Shankargiri Goswami (D.S.Goswami) - appellant of Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2015 came to be arrested on 04/10/2011. Investigation further revealed that four other persons had also committed the crime and another Accent car was used in the crime. There was a close watch to find out such Accent car. Having found an Accent car without any number plate, the same was apprehended on 06/10/2011 wherein remaining four accused were travelling and were apprehended. A tamancha was found from one of those four accused and they were ultimately arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case to learned Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, etc. of the Indian Penal Code. A tamancha was found from one of those four accused and they were ultimately arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case to learned Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, etc. of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge at Exh-24 on 17/08/2012 against all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code for forging documents in the nature of sale deed in the name of owner of the property and also framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that an amount of Rs.12,000/- and a mobile was stolen from the pocket of deceased Somaji Mathurji Thakor and Section 25-B of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act read with Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code. Charges levelled against the accused were denied by each of them and therefore, trial proceeded further in accordance with law. The prosecution examined in all 51 witnesses and produced several documentary evidence like Panchnama, P.M.Note, Serological report from Forensic Science Laboratory, etc. The defence examined two witnesses namely Bharatbhai Shivabhai Patel, DW-1 at Exh-231 and Rambhai Mafatlal Patel, DW-2 at Exh.234. Further statement under Section 313 of the Code was recorded for each of the appellants, who denied the case put forward by the prosecution. Learned Sessions Judge after examining the evidence on record and scrutinizing the depositions of each witness came to the conclusion that all the appellants are guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated hereinabove whereas some of them were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code as well as acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Hence, these appeals. 6. Hence, these appeals. 6. Mr.Pratik Barot, learned advocate, who has filed the appeal on behalf of Jitendragiri Mahendragiri Goswami as well as Mr.Hardik Barot, learned advocate, who has filed the appeal on behalf of Dashrathgiri Shankargiri Goswami, have vehemently submitted that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances, which would lead to the conclusion that only and only the appellant/s are the culprit and have committed the crime and therefore, learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants as well as other accused. 6.1 Mr.Pratik Barot, learned advocate appearing for one of the appellant has argued the matter for the appellant namely Jitendragiri Mahendragiri Goswami, however has taken us through the depositions and evidence of witnesses, which also allegedly involved other accused. He would submit that advocate for each appellant has argued the matter only for the conviction under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and none of them have argued the matter for conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code. 6.2 Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing any motive on the part of any of the appellant to commit murder of Somaji Mathurji. He would submit that the prosecution has heavily relied upon a sale deed allegedly executed by Rameshbhai Rajubhai Kumbhani and the deceased Somaji Mathurji Thakor. He would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the original land belongs to the father of one of the appellants namely Dashrathgiri Shankargiri Goswami, who had sold the property to Rameshbhai Ramjibhai in the year 2006 and allegedly having known the fact of transfer of property by his father, they created bogus documents with the help of the other appellants, agreed to sell the property to the deceased to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- itself, would not establish that he was under fear that the deceased Somaji Thakor, would come to know about forgery, committed murder. He would submit that the sale deed in the name of the owner might have been established but for the said offence, some of the appellants have already been convicted but could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, in absence of any other circumstances and would not automatically involve each of the appellants in the murder of Somaji Mathurji Thakor. 6.3 By taking us through the deposition of son of the deceased, namely Alpeshbhai Somaji Thakor, PW-32 at Exh-140, he would submit that it is unestablished fact that he has not seen the deceased in company of any of the appellants, the only thing what he has stated is that one of the appellant namely Dashrathgiri Shankargiri and his father were in the business of property selling and he knows one of the appellants namely Dashrathgiri Shankargiri Goswami. 6.4 It was further argued that the evidence led by the prosecution of having been seen last together of deceased Somaji Mathurji Thakor with Dashrathgiri Sankargiri, one Rameshji Bachubha Vaghela, PW-38 at Exh-164 and other four persons have been examined by the prosecution but he is a chance witness, which emerges from his cross-examination. By taking us through his deposition, he would submit that as per his examination-in-chief, he has seen the deceased in Tavera car along with Dashrathgiri and the registration number of the car was noted. However, he has not disclosed registration number of Accent car, which was also seen in the sim of Palodiya village, in which, four unknown persons were sitting. He would submit that he could identify only two accused namely Dashrathgiri and Rajubhai Kanubhai Patel in the court-room though he might have been identified in the Test Identification Parade held by Executive Magistrate. He would submit that after arrest of all the accused, only just before the Test Identification Parade, their statements were recorded by the investigating officer. 6.5 Another witness namely Jitendrasinh Anopsinh Vaghela PW-36 at Exh-161 is concerned, he would submit that he could identify only one of the appellants namely Dashrathgiri, who was seen on 28/09/2011 at 9:00 hours, near the field of deceased Somaji himself. However, he has not seen any other accused along with the deceased. 6.5 Another witness namely Jitendrasinh Anopsinh Vaghela PW-36 at Exh-161 is concerned, he would submit that he could identify only one of the appellants namely Dashrathgiri, who was seen on 28/09/2011 at 9:00 hours, near the field of deceased Somaji himself. However, he has not seen any other accused along with the deceased. He would submit that these witnesses are chance witnesses as they know the deceased since number of years and had deposed before the court only to help the prosecution and therefore, if their evidences are discarded, there is no other evidence, which would lead to the conclusion and to believe that only the appellants have committed the crime and particularly when the dead-body was found on the next date i.e. on 29/09/2011. 6.6 He would submit that the panch witnesses, discovery of clothes of the accused; weapon allegedly used in the crime and currency notes are concerned, the same has not been supported by the witness and therefore, the same is also required to be discarded. 6.7 As far as Test Identification Parade is concerned, Mr.Pratik Barot, learned advocate has tried to show that the Magistrate has not taken proper care and has not followed the procedure before arranging the Test Identification Parade. By taking us through the deposition of Executive Magistrate- Muktilal Mafatlal Chauhan, PW-35 Exh-155, who had arranged Test Identification Parade, it was argued that though he has stated in his deposition that he has arranged Test Identification Parade and brought 12 dummys of similar height and age of the accused, the same is not reflected in the panchnama at Exh-66. He would submit that when panch witnesses of panchnama have not supported the case of prosecution, the benefits would go in favour of the appellants and particularly when there are no other circumstances established. 6.8 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh @ Sarkari and others V/s. State of Haryana decided in Criminal Appeal No.1648 2019; in the case of Ashish Jain V/s. Makrand Singh with State of Madhya Pradesh reported in Criminal Appeal No.1980 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.1981 of 2008, another case delivered by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Mohanlal @ Munno Usmanbhai Chauhan in Criminal Appeal No.911 of 1990. He would submit that in all these judgements, the Hon’ble Apex Court after coming to the conclusion that no proper test identification parade was held, in absence of any other evidence acquitted the accused persons and upheld the acquittal by the lower court. So called discovery of clothes wore by the accused persons and having found the blood stains of the deceased blood group, he would submit that the panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution and no proper questions have been asked to investigating Officer, such discovery looses its credibility and therefore, these evidences are required to be discarded and on this ground also, in absence of another important charge, the appellants would be entitled for the acquittal. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanubhai Shanabhai Gamechi V/s. State of Gujarat delivered in Criminal Appeal No.614 of 2007 reported in 55(2) GLR 1620. 6.9 By relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Somasundaram @ Somu Vs. State Rep. by The Deputy Commissioner of Police, which has been decided by Madras High Court on June 3, 2020 reported in 2020(3) MLJ (Cri.) 48 (SC), it was argued that in absence of any material which establishes the crime which has been taken under Section 120-B of Indian penal Code, the case is untenable and therefore, in absence of any specific allegation against each of the appellants, the appellants would be entitled for acquittal. 7. Mr.Hardik Barot, learned advocate appearing for one of the appellants, has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr.Pratik Barot. However, he has relied upon several decisions wherein the Courts have dealt with the cases where the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence and in absence of completion of chain, the Court had acquitted the accused persons. By relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Yogesh @ Anilbhai Zaverbhai V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in 52 (4) GLR 3178, it was submitted that theory of last seen together is not properly established and subsequent conduct of accused in absconding or hiding themselves is not conclusive of either guilt or guilty conscious and accordingly the accused were acquitted. In the present case also, four accused were arrested in a car after sometime, the case would not be against the appellants. In the present case also, four accused were arrested in a car after sometime, the case would not be against the appellants. Similar is the decision rendered in the case of Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2014 Cri.L.J 2371. By relying upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kanubhai Shanabhai Gamechi (supra), he would submit that last seen together does not by itself lead to the inference that it was the accused, who has committed the crime. 8. Learned advocates Mr. Atit Thakore as well as Mr. Rajkumar, appearing for the one of the appellants, have adopted the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot as well as learned advocate Mr. Hardik Barot and would submit that the appeal may be allowed and judgement and order may be quashed and set aside and the appellants may be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed these appeals and supported the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while convicting the appellants and sentencing accordingly. He would submit that as and when xerox copy of agreement to sell was found from the jeep where the dead-body was lying, the same was seized by the panchnama at Exh-34, which was prepared immediately and thereafter investigation progressed in proper direction which resulted into filing of charge-sheet against each of the appellants- accused. 9.1 Since the sale deed disclosed the name of Rameshbhai Ramjibhai, who was resident of Maninagar of Ahmedabad, the investigating officer immediately started to look out for him and ultimately traced out said Rameshbhai Ramjibhai, who had purchased the property from the father of Dashrathgiri along with another person in the year 2006 and had never entered into an agreement with the deceased Somaji Mathurji and the same was forged one. Further investigation reveals that Dashrathgiri was keen in forging the documents. When he was arrested on 04/10/2011, he discovered the clothes from his own house and panchnama at Exh- 71 was prepared in presence of Kalaji Mafatji Thakor, PW-11, Exh.70, who has supported the case of prosecution. He would submit that even the amount to the tune of Rs.3,95,000/-, was received from the deceased towards the part payment of the sale deed. The said panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He would submit that even the amount to the tune of Rs.3,95,000/-, was received from the deceased towards the part payment of the sale deed. The said panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The clothes were sent for serological report to Forensic Science Laboratory. The blood stains were found on his pant and shirts and the same were of deceased blood group as per the serological report at Exh-207. Even more, amount was found from his brother-in-law’s house. Though he has not supported the case of prosecution, the same is proved in the deposition of the investigation officer. He would submit that there is no dispute that the Tavera car belongs to the deceased and for the same, necessary documents are produced and proved by the prosecution. 9.2 Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP would submit that one of the appellant namely Dashrathgiri Sankargiri, who is resident of surrounding village, was seen by them on 28/09/2011 at around 9:00 a.m. along with the deceased. As far as other four appellants-accused are concerned, who were not known to one of the witnesses, who had seen them in another Accent Car, has identified them before the Executive Magistrate in Test Identification Parade. 9.3 By taking us through the deposition of Jitendrasinh Anopsinh Vaghela PW-36 at Exh-161, he would submit that this witness is resident of Village: Godhavi and deceased Somaji Mathurji Thakor, who is resident of adjacent village Palodiya, was his friend and was knowing him since last 10 years. Their agricultural fields are adjacent to each other. As per his deposition, he has seen the appellant Dashrathgiri Shankargiri along with deceased Somaji in the Tavera Car, which belongs to Somaji at around 9:00 am. He has categorically stated that car was being driven by Dashrathgiri whereas deceased Somaji was sitting along side the driver seat. He would submit that the defense would not bring out anything in his cross-examination, which creates doubts about his say of having last seen together with one of the appellant and the deceased in a car from which, the dead body was found. 9.4 Another important witness namely Rameshji Bachubha Vaghela, PW-38 at Exh-164 has seen the deceased and Dashrathgiri in the Tavera Car, which belongs to the deceased as well as had seen all other four appellants-accused in the Accent Car on 28/09/2011 at around 10:45 to 11:00 am. 9.4 Another important witness namely Rameshji Bachubha Vaghela, PW-38 at Exh-164 has seen the deceased and Dashrathgiri in the Tavera Car, which belongs to the deceased as well as had seen all other four appellants-accused in the Accent Car on 28/09/2011 at around 10:45 to 11:00 am. Since he was not knowing other four persons, Investigating Agency arranged Test Identification Parade through Executive Magistrate and in Test Identification Parade, this witness namely Rameshji Bachubha Vaghela was able to identify all other accused persons, who were in different Accent Car and had seen all five appellants and the deceased simultaneously in two different cars. 9.5 He would submit that he could say that this witness had identified the appellants person before the Executive Magistrate in Test Identification Parade on 10/10/2011 whereas his deposition was recorded on 03/04/2014 and therefore, he might not be able to identify all four persons in the court room. However, he could identify one of the appellants namely Rajubhai Kanubhai Patel in the court-room. Not identifying those accused in the court room, would not vitiate the entire investigation when other clinching circumstantial evidence are established against all the appellants accused. 9.6 He would submit that the submissions made on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the appellants-accused that there are procedural lapses in arranging the test identification parade is concerned, he would submit that Executive Magistrate had properly arranged the test identification parade and had taken utmost care to see that the identity of all the accused, who were supposed to be identified, is not disclosed before actual test identification parade is held. 9.7 By taking us through the deposition of Executive Magistrate- Muktilal Mafatlal Chauhan, PW-35 Exh-155, he would submit that Executive Magistrate has called for 12 dummy persons of having similar heights, age and description like other witnesses and the same is also reflected in panchnama at Exh-66. Exh-66 discloses the same aspect and age of witnesses, who are residents of different villages of Taluka: Kalol and Taluka: Kadi. Exh-66 discloses the same aspect and age of witnesses, who are residents of different villages of Taluka: Kalol and Taluka: Kadi. 9.8 Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP would further submit that apart from the above aspect of last seen together by two witnesses, the discovery of clothes of different accused, knife discovered at the instance of one of the appellants, it is proved from the deposition of Investigating Officer and establishes the fact that each of the appellants had hatched conspiracy and had played active role in committing murder, since blood stains of deceased have been found on the clothes of different appellants or knife discovered at the instance of one of the appellants. 9.9 By taking us through serological report received from Forensic Science laboratory at Exh-208, he would submit that the clothes of the deceased, blood found from the seat-cover of the car, a knife lying in the car were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the blood group is found to be of “A” group, whereas the same blood stains of the deceased have been found from the clothes of Dashrathgiri and on the shirt of Rajiv Ramkaran Jatav. The blood stains of the deceased have been found on the knife discovered at the instance of Rajubhai Patel. In absence of any explanation or any injury on the person of any of the accused, it establishes that while committing the crime, they were present. 9.10 So many as, there are 11 external injuries, which include stab wound injury at abdomen and cut throat injury (PM Note Exh- 151) and the same blood is found on the clothes of the different appellants, which establishes their presence in committing the crime. He, therefore, would submit that prosecution was able to establish motive and entire chain of circumstances, which has been rightly believed by the trial court that the appellants had hatched conspiracy to run away from the deceased so that the money, which was illegally obtained from the deceased by one of the appellants and by forging documents, may not have to be returned. 9.11 By relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. 9.11 By relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 269 , he would submit that there is no explanation on behalf of the appellants, as to how blood stains of the deceased, have been found from their clothes discovered at their instance and blood stains of the deceased were found on the knife discovered at their instance. When they were asked specific questions, while recording statements under Section 313 of the Code, mere denial would not be sufficient and it is for the accused to explain the same. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and others (supra). He would submit that though some of the panch witnesses with regard to discovery of clothes of the accused, may not have supported the case of the prosecution, but the Investigating Officer has clearly deposed before the Court that how discovery was made and therefore, learned Trial Court has committed no error in relying upon such discovery and in support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun and others V/s. State of Karnataka reported in 2019 (8) SCC 359 . 9.12 Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP would further submit that the prosecution was successful in establishing entire chain of circumstances, which was rightly believed by the learned Trial Court that the appellants had hatched conspiracy and committed the crime at the time and place as alleged against all the appellants-accused and therefore, he would submit that all these appeals may be dismissed. 10. We have heard different learned advocates appearing for the appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents- State authorities. As submitted by learned advocates appearing for the appellants-accused and as recorded hereinabove, they have not challenged the conviction recorded under Section 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence imposed thereon but have argued the case so far as the conviction for rest of the offence like Section 302, 120-B, etc. of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 11. of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 11. As far as motive is concerned, the prosecution is able to establish that parcel of agricultural land bearing block no.239 of Village: Palodiya originally belongs to Shankargiri Ishwargiri Goswami, Gabhaji Somaji Thakor and Hiraben Shankargiri Goswami. The said property was purchased by one Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Kumbhani PW-31, Exh-131 from the aforesaid three persons by executing sale deed on 19/09/2006. Subsequent to the said registration of sale deed, name of Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Kumbhani, who is resident of city of Ahmedabad, was mutated in the revenue records. It is an admitted position that out of three transferers, two are father and mother of one of the appellants namely Dashrathgiri Shankargiri. The name of said Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Kumbhani continued in all revenue records including 7/12 extract since 2006 onwards and was never changed. All these documents have been produced and proved by prosecution through the said Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Kumbhani being Exh. Nos. 132 & 134. When the deadbody was found in Tavera Car belonged to the deceased Somaji, sale deed was found therein. Sale deed revealed that Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Kumbhani had sold the property to Somaji Mathurji Thakor and his son Alpeshji Somaji Thakor. However, said Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Kumbhani has denied his signature on the sale deed, which is produced at Exh.136. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said sale deed at Exh-136 is forged one. In the said document, the appellant namely Yadav Rajubhai Virkumar had affixed his photo in the said sale deed as if he is Rameshbhai Ramjibhai whereas the appellant Goswami Dashrathgiri Shankargiri and Goswami Jitendragiri Mahendragiri had put their signatures identifying the accused Yadav Rajubhai Virkumar as Rameshbhai Ramjibhai. The document at Exh-136 discloses that the property was sold at the tune of Rs.50 Lacs and out of it, cash amount of Rs.15 Lacs had been paid to transferer namely Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Kumbhani, who had never received any amount nor had signed any document. On the contrary, the first person, who is apprehended by the Investigating Agency is Dashrathgiri Shankargiri, from whom, cash amount was found and clothes having blood stains of the deceased are also found, which is proved through serological reports received from Forensic Science Laboratory. On the contrary, the first person, who is apprehended by the Investigating Agency is Dashrathgiri Shankargiri, from whom, cash amount was found and clothes having blood stains of the deceased are also found, which is proved through serological reports received from Forensic Science Laboratory. Being the son of the original owner Shankargiri Goswami, he was aware that property was already sold by his parents way back in the year 2006 and he being in financial difficulties, hatched conspiracy with the help of other accused and created bogus documents and received an amount of Rs.15 Lacs by forging a document. The said sale deed at Exh.136 is executed on 23/09/2011. However within no time i.e. within a period of 5 to 6 days, an unfortunate incident had taken place, which establishes the motive on the part of all accused to see that they may not have to return huge amount of Rs.15 Lacs, which is fraudulently and illegally obtained from the deceased Somaji. 12. Since there is no eye-witness to the actual crime, this Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of those witnesses, who have seen the deceased and accused jointly on 28/09/2011 that is prior to one day when the dead-body was found. 13. Witness- Jitendrasinh Anopsinh Vaghela (PW-36 at Exh- 161) is friend of the deceased Somaji since last 10 years and he was aware about all the details that the car belongs to him. As per his say, he had seen the deceased Somaji along with one of the appellants namely Dashrathgiri Shankargiri in the Tavera Car belonging to the deceased on 28/09/2011 at around 9:00 am. 14. It is true that initially when his statement was recorded on 02/10/2011, he had not raised doubt against anybody but that is not the only reason to discard his testimony before the court which is in consonance with his statement subsequently recorded by the Investigating Officer. 15. Another important witness namely Rameshji Bachubha Vaghela, PW-38 is concerned, he has seen Dashrathgiri Shankargiri along with the deceased Somaji in Tavera Car at around 10:45 am to 11:00 am in the sim of village: Palodiya and he had also seen another Accent Car wherein four persons were sitting. 15. Another important witness namely Rameshji Bachubha Vaghela, PW-38 is concerned, he has seen Dashrathgiri Shankargiri along with the deceased Somaji in Tavera Car at around 10:45 am to 11:00 am in the sim of village: Palodiya and he had also seen another Accent Car wherein four persons were sitting. Since he knew only one of the accused, namely Dashrathgiri Shankargiri, Test Identification Parade was arranged by the Investigating Officer and in that test identification parade, this witness has identified rest of the appellants- accused, who remained active in the conspiracy hatched by the main accused namely Dashrathgiri and have helped either in committing forgery and also committing actual crime by giving several blows by deadly weapons like knives, sticks, etc. to the deceased in his own car. 16. Dashrathgiri Shankargiri was immediately arrested by the Investigating Agency. Discovery panchnama through Dashrathgiri Shankargiri at Exh-71 was prepared, from which, the clothes and cash were discovered. Panch witness of the said Panchnama namely Kalaji Mafatji Thakor, PW-11, Exh.70, has supported the case of prosecution. If we examine the said Panchnama at Exh-71, pant and shirt of Dashrathgiri were discovered wherein some blood stains of the deceased were found. The said articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Serological report at Exh-208 suggests that blood stains of the deceased were found from the clothes belongs to Dashrathgiri. 17. There is no explanation by this appellant Dashrathgiri that how the blood stains of the deceased are found on his clothes and therefore, the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and others (Supra) would come into play. 18. It has come in record that Investigating Agency was in search of an Accent Car, which was seen by witness Rameshji Bachubha Vaghela, PW-38, in which, four persons were sitting. An unnumbered Accent car was intercepted by the Investigating Agency, in which, four accused were found. Vehicle was being driven by one of the appellants namely Jitendragiri Mahendragiri Goswami and ultimately, it was established by the prosecution that the said unnumbered Accent Car belongs to said Jitendragiri. An amount of Rs.4,95,000/- was found from the car near the driver seat. Another person namely Rajiv son of Ramkaran Jatav was also travelling along side the driver and from his possession, a country made pistol was found. 19. An amount of Rs.4,95,000/- was found from the car near the driver seat. Another person namely Rajiv son of Ramkaran Jatav was also travelling along side the driver and from his possession, a country made pistol was found. 19. Another two appellants namely Rajubhai Kanubhai Patel and Rajubhai Virkumar Yadav were sitting in the back seat of the car and accordingly panchnama Exh.83 was prepared, which have been proved through panch witness namely Dashrathbhai Parshottambhai Patel – PW-13, Exh.81. None of these appellants-accused had any injury on their person and their clothes were seized by the Investigating Agency and were sent for serological report to Forensic Science Laboratory. As stated hereinabove, blood stains of the deceased have been found on the clothes of the appellants namely Dashrathgiri, Rajiv Ramkaran Jatav as well as on the knife discovered at the instance of Patel Rajubhai Kanubhai. All these persons were arrested on 06/10/2011 and immediately test identification parade was arranged on 10/10/2011. Submission made by learned advocates appearing for the appellants about procedural lapses in arranging test identification parade is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Executive Magistrate and the Panch witnesses have stated and the same is reflected in test identification parade panchnama at Exh.66 that all the dummy persons, which were called for test identification parade, were of the same age and similar appearance and therefore, the judgements relied upon by learned advocates appearing for the appellants would not be applicable. 20. We also don’t accept the case put forward by the appellants’ defence about alibi of all the appellants since nothing has come on record through their depositions that at the date and time of occurrence of the crime, none of the appellants were at some different place. 21. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution was successful in establishing the entire chain of circumstances, which lead the court to believe that there was motive behind the crime and all the accused have hatched criminal conspiracy and done away the deceased. Hence, all these appeals fail and accordingly are dismissed. R & P be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.