JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide Judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.56/2008: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- - 1 Month’s S.I. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentence awarded, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below: 4. Khemchand (PW-1) lodged a written report to the SHO Police Station Anoopgarh on 02.09.2008 at 1.10 am, alleging inter alia that he alongwith his brother Praveen Kumar @ Pinnu and mother Mitlo Bai, used to live in their house at Ward No.13, Anoopgarh. On the night of 01.09.2008, at about 8.00 pm, Baljindra Singh @ Binder, Banti, Joga Singh and Sardul Singh @ Sectori (the appellants herein) took his brother Pinnu alongwith them saying that they were going for some work and would return in an hour. The informant knew these four persons from before because they would often visit his brother. Pinnu who did not return home till 11.30 pm. upon which, the informant went out searching for him. He looked out for him in the market and reached the Raisinghnagar crossroads and tried to find out the whereabouts of his brother from the shopkeepers. Ramesh Kumar @ Billa, owner of ‘Jai Durga’ Tea Stall told the informant that Binder Singh, Banti, Joga Singh and Sardul Singh @ Sectori were quarreling with Pinnu in an inebriated state. They had purchased liquor from a liquor shop and had proceeded towards Vijaynagar Pulia. The informant therefore proceeded towards Vijaynagar Pulia and there, at some distance, he saw the dead body of Pinnu lying nearby the road. Large number of injuries were visible on the body of Pinnu. Khemchand immediately gave telephonic information to the police station. He alleged that the four assailants named above, had beaten his brother Pinnu to death. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.469/2008 came to be registered at the Police Station Anoopgarh for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The SHO, Police Station, Anoopgarh, Shri Ganesh Nath Siddh (PW- 16) reached the spot and secured the area. The dead body of Pinnu was sent to the hospital for autopsy. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.469/2008 came to be registered at the Police Station Anoopgarh for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The SHO, Police Station, Anoopgarh, Shri Ganesh Nath Siddh (PW- 16) reached the spot and secured the area. The dead body of Pinnu was sent to the hospital for autopsy. Suspected foot prints were lifted from the place of incident and were sealed as per the prescribed procedure. Blood stains observed at the spot where the dead body of Pinnu was abandoned by the assailants, were lifted in a gauze. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were collected and were seized. The accused were arrested in the following sequence: (i) Baljinder Singh @ Binder- 02.09.2008 at 02.00 pm. (Ex.P/25), (ii) Joga Singh- 02.09.2008 at 02.50 pm. (Ex.P/26), (iii) Amin Khan- 02.09.2008 at 03.50 pm. (Ex.P/27), (iv) Sardul Singh @ Sectori- 09.09.2008 at 12.50 am. (Ex.P/23). The clothes worn by the accused at the time of their arrest were seized for the purpose of serological examination. The sandals worn by Baljinder Singh and Chappals worn by the accused Joga Singh at the time of their arrest, were also seized. All the accused were made to wear the respective footwear and specimen foot moulds were prepared for seeking a comparison report with the suspected foot moulds lifted from the place of incident. The dead body of Shri Pinnu was subjected to autopsy by a team of two doctors at the Community Health Center, Anoopgarh which issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/50) taking note of 9 injuries which caused grave damage including fracture on various body parts of Pinnu. The frontal bone of skull was fractured. The cause of death was opined to be haemmorhage due to the head injury resulting in damage to the brain. After concluding investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused appellants as above. The blood stained articles and foot prints which were seized during the course of investigation were forwarded to the FSL for analysis/ comparison. The FSL report (Ex.P/85) regarding the blood stained articles was received with the following conclusion: “REPORT ON BLOOD GROUP 4. The following exhibits were found to be stained with… “AB”…. group blood:- 2(from-A-3), 3, 4(from-B), 7(from-E), 9(from-G), 12(from-K), 14(from-L), 15(from-M), 16(from-T) and 18(from-X)”. The FSL report (Ex.P/85) regarding the blood stained articles was received with the following conclusion: “REPORT ON BLOOD GROUP 4. The following exhibits were found to be stained with… “AB”…. group blood:- 2(from-A-3), 3, 4(from-B), 7(from-E), 9(from-G), 12(from-K), 14(from-L), 15(from-M), 16(from-T) and 18(from-X)”. The FSL report (Ex.P/86) regarding the comparison of the foot moulds was received with the following conclusion: “RESULT OF EXAMINATION 1- Footwear sole impression reproduced in mould marked-A1/1 tally with the footwear sole impression reproduced in mould marked-N/1 and sole of Sandal exhibit-O/L. 2. Footwear sole impression reproduced in mould marked-A2/1 tally with the footwear sole impression reproduced in mould marked-P/1 and sole of Chappal exhibit-Q/L. 3. Footwear sole impression reproduced in mould marked-A1/1 and A2/1 differ from the footwear sole impression reproduced in mould marked-R/1 and mould marked-U/1 and sole of Chappal exhibits S/L and S/R and sole of Chappal exhibits V/R and V/L.” As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh for trial where, charges were framed against the accused appellants for the offence mentioned above. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 103 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case which they denied and claimed to be falsely implicated. Two documents were exhibited by the defence, however, no oral evidence was led. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and, after appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence this appeal. 5. Sarva Shri Deepak Menaria (Amicus Curiae), Dhirendra Singh and B.S. Sandhu, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The allegations set out in the written report (Ex.P/1) that the appellants herein took away the deceased in the night of 01.09.2008 is totally false and fabricated. Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and Joni (PW-7), who were portrayed to be the witnesses who lastly saw the deceased Pinnu in the company of the accused persons, are cooked up witnesses. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after significant delay for which, no explanation is forthcoming. Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and Joni (PW-7), who were portrayed to be the witnesses who lastly saw the deceased Pinnu in the company of the accused persons, are cooked up witnesses. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after significant delay for which, no explanation is forthcoming. Hence, the trial court committed grave error in placing reliance on their testimony. The chance foot print impressions were fabricated by the I.O. in order to somehow or the other prove the case against the appellants. The appellants had no motive whatsoever to kill the deceased. There is no evidence to show that any of the appellants was present near the deceased when he received the fatal injury. As a matter of fact, a case of road traffic accident was given the colour of murder for oblique purposes. On these grounds, learned counsel representing the appellants sought acceptance of the appeal and implored the Court to acquit the appellants of the charges. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. They submitted that neither the first informant Khemchand (PW-1) nor the two witnesses of last seen namely Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and Joni (PW-7) had any animosity whatsoever with the appellants. The deceased Pinnu was taken away by the appellants from his home at about 8 O’ Clock in the night of 01.09.2008 in the clear view of his brother Khemchand. He did not return home till 11.30 pm. whereupon, Khemchand (PW-1) became worried. He initiated a search and during the course thereof, he was told by Ramesh Kumar that he had seen the deceased and the appellants herein engaged in a brawl under the influence of liquor. Soon thereafter, the dead body of Pinnu, with multiple injuries all over the body, was found lying near the road. As the appellants were the persons lastly seen in the company of the deceased and since they were seen assaulting the deceased, the burden to explain as to how the victim received the fatal injuries on his body, shifted on to the appellants, as this fact was exclusively in their knowledge. The presence of blood stains of same blood group as the deceased on the apparel of the accused appellants was not explained. The presence of blood stains of same blood group as the deceased on the apparel of the accused appellants was not explained. The chance foot prints found at the spot matched with the specimen foot prints of the footwear worn by the accused Baljinder Singh and Joga Singh and as such, the prosecution has proved its case as against the appellants beyond all manner of doubt and hence, the impugned Judgment does not warrant any interference whatsoever. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the complainant, sought dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned Judgment as well as the record. 8. At the outset, it is relevant to state here that neither the first informant Khemchand (PW-1) nor the two witnesses of last seen namely Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and Joni (PW-7) had any animosity whatsoever with the appellants herein. No suggestion was given by the defence to any of these witnesses that any of these three witnesses had a cause to falsely implicate the accused appellants for the murder of Shri Pinnu. We have carefully perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The material evidence in this case is of PW-1 Khemchand- the first informant, PW-5 Ramesh Kumar and PW-7 Joni. All the witnesses gave evidence to prove the highly incriminating circumstance of last seen against the appellants. For the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned here that the deceased had been picked up from his home by the accused appellants at about 8 O’ Clock and his dead body was found by the first informant Khemchand some time after 11.30 pm. Immediately on seeing the dead body of his brother, the first informant called the police station Anoopgarh. The officers of the Police Station Anoopgarh reached the place of incident by 1 O’ Clock and the written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted by the informant to the SHO, Police Station Anoopgarh - Shri Ganesh Nath Siddh (PW-16) at the place of incident at 01.10 am. Thus, the FIR (Ex.P/45) was lodged immediately after the incident and thus, the informant neither had the time nor the opportunity to manipulate the facts set out in the FIR. Thus, the FIR (Ex.P/45) was lodged immediately after the incident and thus, the informant neither had the time nor the opportunity to manipulate the facts set out in the FIR. In this written report (Ex.P/1) and in the testimony of the first informant Khemchand (PW-1), there is an unimpeachable allegation that the appellants herein were the persons who picked up the deceased from his house in the late hours of 01.09.2008. In cross-examination, Khemchand (PW-1) clearly stated that the accused appellants came outside their house and called the victim out. The informant was standing outside the house. He asked the accused as to what they wanted from Pinnu. In the meantime, the victim came out and the accused took him away with them. They did not explain the purpose for which they were taking Pinnu with them. Other than this, hardly any question was put to the witness regarding his assertion that the deceased was picked up by the four appellants. A bald suggestion was given to the witness that the deceased was intoxicated and he expired because of injuries received in a road traffic accident which the witness emphatically denied. The witness also affirmed that when he was searching for his brother, he met Ramesh Kumar, who operates a tea stall on the crossroads. Ramesh told the witness that he saw the four appellants quarreling with Praveen @ Pinu. Thus, in the promptly lodged FIR (Ex.P/45), the name of Ramesh Kumar is clearly mentioned as the person who had seen the appellants quarreling with Pinnu. We are of the firm opinion that the testimony of Khemchand (PW-1) is unimpeachable and he is a witness of sterling worth regarding the allegation that the appellants were the persons who had taken away the deceased with them on the date of the incident. After leaving the home, the appellants and the deceased consumed liquor which they purchased from Joni (PW-7) the liquor salesman. He stated in his testimony that in the evening of 01.09.2008 between 08.00-08.30 pm., the appellants came to his shop and purchased two quarters of liquor. Pinnu was also accompanying them. They consumed liquor outside the hotel. They then went away towards Raisinghnagar road. A little later, Banti came back and took two more quarters of liquor. In cross-examination, witness clarified that he knew Pinnu for the last 4-5 years. Pinnu was also accompanying them. They consumed liquor outside the hotel. They then went away towards Raisinghnagar road. A little later, Banti came back and took two more quarters of liquor. In cross-examination, witness clarified that he knew Pinnu for the last 4-5 years. He also knew his brothers Khemchand and T.T. Not a single question was put to the witness regarding his assertion that the accused appellants and the deceased came together to his shop for purchasing liquor on the fateful night. Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) alleged in his evidence that on the fateful night, he saw Pinnu and the accused appellants herein quarreling with each other in an inebriated state. They then went towards Ramsinghpur. Later on, Khemchand approached him and asked where he had seen his brother on which, the witness told Khemchand that he had seen the accused party going towards Ramsinghpur. In the crossexamination conducted from this witness, no such significant fact was elicited which can cast a doubt on his testimony. No significant question was put to the witness regarding the so-called delay in recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 9. From a minute analysis of the evidence of PW-1 Khemchand, PW-5 Ramesh Kumar and PW-7 Joni, we have no hesitation in concluding that on the fateful night i.e. 01.09.2008, the four appellants herein picked up the deceased Pinnu from his home. They purchased liquor from the shop of Joni and were thereafter, seen quarreling with the deceased. They went towards the direction of Ramsinghpur where, the dead body of Pinnu was found. The accused appellants were arrested in the sequence mentioned herein above. The clothes worn by them at the time of their arrest were seized by the I.O. Shri Ganesh Nath Siddh (PW- 16). The clothes worn by the accused, the clothes recovered from the dead body of Pinnu and the blood stained soil collected from the spot were forwarded to the FSL, Jodhpur from where, a report (Ex.P/85) was issued with the conclusion that all these articles were stained with AB Group Blood. The clothes worn by the accused, the clothes recovered from the dead body of Pinnu and the blood stained soil collected from the spot were forwarded to the FSL, Jodhpur from where, a report (Ex.P/85) was issued with the conclusion that all these articles were stained with AB Group Blood. On a perusal of the testimony of the I.O. Shri Ganesh Nath Siddh (PW-16), we are satisfied that the steps of investigation which he undertook regarding arrest of the accused, the collection of their blood stained clothes and the collection of the chance foot print impressions and the specimen impressions of footwear worn by the accused are impeccable and do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. As the accused persons were responsible for taking the deceased away from his house on the fateful night and since they were seen quarreling with him just before the dead body of Pinnu was found with significant marks of violence, the knowledge of the fact as to how Pinnu met with death by violence would be in the exclusive domain of the appellants herein. The appellants failed to offer any explanation as to how Pinnu received these fatal injuries. The bald assertion of the accused persons that Pinnu received the injuries in a road traffic accident is totally unacceptable. 10. Medical Jurist Dr. Jitendra Singh (PW-12), observed the following injuries when the autopsy was undertaken on the dead body and the postmortem report (Ex.P/50) was prepared: 1. Lacerated Wound- 5x5 cms bone deep on the Right Shin of Tibia. Both Tibia & Fibula broken. 2. Lacerated Wound- 3x2 cms, 1x1 cms, 1x1 cms, 2x2 cms, 1X1 cms., 1X1 cms. all bone deep and Wounds admeasuring 1x1 cms, 1x0.5 cms both muscle deep over the left lower Tibia below knee. Tibia and Fibula broken at many places. 3. Left upper limb contusions 10 in number varying 1x1 cms to 5x4 cms in size on the upper end of Radius and Ulna near elbow. 4. Right upper limb contusions 3x3 cms and 2x2 cms below elbow. 5. Right Forearm Contusion- 3x3 cms, 2x2 cms 6. Dorsum of Right Hand- 2 contusions measuring 2x2 cms and 1x1 cms 7. Contusion Right Clavicle Part- 5x2.5 cms 8. Contusion 0.5x0.5 cms. muscle deep on the face 9. 4. Right upper limb contusions 3x3 cms and 2x2 cms below elbow. 5. Right Forearm Contusion- 3x3 cms, 2x2 cms 6. Dorsum of Right Hand- 2 contusions measuring 2x2 cms and 1x1 cms 7. Contusion Right Clavicle Part- 5x2.5 cms 8. Contusion 0.5x0.5 cms. muscle deep on the face 9. Lacerated Wound- 3x2 cms bone deep on the Right part of the forehead, underlying bone fractured.” A purely conjectural suggestion given by the defence to the doctor that the head injury suffered by the deceased could be as a result of collision of the vehicle. This theory is absolutely unworthy of credence. The doctor categorically stated that the head injury, which resulted into death of Shri Pinnu, could not be caused by a fall on the road. Regarding the other injuries, the defence did not give any suggestion whatsoever to the doctor that these could be suffered in a road traffic accident. Otherwise also, looking to the location, nature and dimensions of the injuries, we have no hesitation in holding that such injuries could not have been suffered in a vehicle accident and were clearly caused through deliberate mechanical violence. Therefore, the defence theory regarding the victim Pinnu having met the fate of death by a road traffic accident, is totally untenable. In addition to the fact that the prosecution has proved its case by unimpeachable evidence that the accused appellants were lastly seen in the company of the deceased, the FSL report (Ex.P/85) also enhances the prosecution case and puts an additional burden on the accused. As has been stated above, the clothes worn by the accused, which were seized at the time of their arrest, were found stained with AB Blood Group which was also the blood group of the deceased. The accused failed to offer any explanation as to how their clothes got stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased. In addition thereto, the chance foot prints lifted from the spot by the I.O. matched with the specimen foot print impressions prepared from the footwear of the accused Baljindra Singh and Joga Singh. If at all, the I.O. intended to fabricate the evidence then he could have fabricated the chance foot print impressions of the two remaining accused as well. In addition thereto, the chance foot prints lifted from the spot by the I.O. matched with the specimen foot print impressions prepared from the footwear of the accused Baljindra Singh and Joga Singh. If at all, the I.O. intended to fabricate the evidence then he could have fabricated the chance foot print impressions of the two remaining accused as well. We are therefore satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused appellants by leading unimpeachable and convincing circumstantial evidence which we have discussed above. The chain of incriminating circumstances is complete in all aspects and points exclusively towards the guilt of the accused and totally rules out any other conclusion. 11. The discussion and appreciation of evidence as undertaken by the trial court while concluding the guilt of the accused appellants by the impugned Judgment dated 30.11.2012 is apropos in all aspects. The impugned Judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond all manner of doubt. 12. Hence, we find no force in this appeal which is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The impugned Judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar is affirmed. The accused appellants Amin Khan @ Banti and Sardul Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender at the Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar for serving out the sentences awarded to them, within next 15 days failing which, the trial court shall issue warrants of arrest against them. 13. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.