Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1654 (RAJ)

Ashok S/o Prema Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-07

RAMESHWAR VYAS, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants herein have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.8/2012 whereby each of them has been convicted and sentenced as follows: Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. Section 397 IPC Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Bhadsoda, District Chittorgarh on 08.10.2011 at 11:15 a.m. at the place of incident alleging inter alia that in the same morning at about 9:00 a.m. he, (first informant) alongwith his driver Lokesh S/o Bhagwati Lal Salvi, Shambhu Lal Bhambi and Sohan Singh were standing near the Roadways Bus Stand, Chittorgarh. The first informant’s Tavera Car No.RJ09UA2957 along with several other cars were parked nearby. Two men came from the direction of roadways bus stand and requested that they wanted to hire a car for going to the Sanwariyaji Temple. The informant asked as to how many persons would travel, on which, these two men replied that both of them and their family members would be going to Sanwariyaji Temple and would return to Chittorgarh and thus, they wanted a big car. On asking these persons about their whereabouts, they replied that they were from Jodhpur side. They introduced themselves as Ashok Kumar Jat and Jai Ram. The informant fixed the rental of the car at Rs.1,500/- and his driver Lokesh started with these two persons towards Sanwariyaji in the Tavera car of the informant. About an hour later, Shambhu Lal called the first informant and told him that his car was lying nearby the Bagund village near the Banjara Dhaba. The driver had been murdered and his body was lying there itself. 3. On getting this information, the first informant, accompanied by Shambhu Lal and Sohan Singh Kalu proceeded from Chittorgarh towards Bagund and saw his car lying on the gravel road 50-60 meters off the highway. Many people had gathered there. The driver had been murdered and his body was lying there itself. 3. On getting this information, the first informant, accompanied by Shambhu Lal and Sohan Singh Kalu proceeded from Chittorgarh towards Bagund and saw his car lying on the gravel road 50-60 meters off the highway. Many people had gathered there. The ensanguined dead body of Lokesh Salvi was lying beside the car. His neck had been cut and numerous wounds had been inflicted all over his body, from which, blood was oozing out. The two passengers were not found near the car and when the informant tried to enquire from the people present there, he was informed that they had been seen running away across the road. The informant alleged that the two assailants had killed his driver and that he, Shambhu Lal and Sohan Singh could identify them. One of the boys was fair, slim and was of average height, aged between 20-21 years and was wearing pant and shirt and the other was tall, dark and had a moustache and a mole on the nose. 4. This report was submitted by the informant Rajesh Sharma to Rakesh Joshi (P.W. 27), SHO, Police Station Bhadsoda at the place of incident and on the basis thereof, an FIR No.120/2011 (Ex.P/65) came to be registered at the Police Station Bhadsoda for the offences under Sections 302 and 397/34 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. 5. The manner of investigation undertaken by Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) has a material bearing on the outcome of the appeal and the relevant steps thereof are summarized hereinbelow :- (a) The SHO Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) reached the place of incident at about 10:00 – 10:15 a.m. and requested Sikander Khan (P.W.28) Sub-Inspector, Motor Transport Officer (MTO), to conduct a mechanical inspection of the car and in turn, Sikandar Khan inspected the same and prepared a detailed MTO report (Ex.P/64) on 08.10.2011 at 10:30 a.m. As per this report, blood stains were seen inside and outside the car. The balance rod of the right side of the car was broken. The balance rod of the right side of the car was broken. Other than these circumstances, nothing unusual was noticed by the MTO; (b) The two accused-appellants were perused and overpowered by constables Sangram Singh, Shyam Lal, Babu Lal, Amichand, Arjun Lal, Hanuman and Jamna from the nearby fields and were presented to the SHO on 08.10.2011 at 11:05 a.m. They were detained and sent to the Police Station without taking any steps to conceal/preserve their identity; (c) A seizure memo (Ex.P/7) was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 08.10.2011 at 12:45 p.m. recording that the Election Commission Identity Card/Voter ID Card and the driving licence of Ashok were recovered lying on the middle seat of the Tavera car; (d) The Investigating Officer summoned the FSL team and got finger prints collected from the car of the complainant vide Memorandum (Ex.P/6) prepared on 08.10.2011 at 12:35 p.m; (e) The blood stains etc. suspected to be of deceased were collected from the car vide seizure memos Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5. The blood stained soil lying at the place of incident was also collected vide seizure memo Ex.P/3; (f) The dead body of Lokesh was sent to the Government Hospital for carrying out postmortem. His blood stained clothes were seized vide Memorandum Ex.P/11 prepared on 08.10.2011 at 1:55 p.m; (g) The postmortem of the dead body of Lokesh was undertaken by Dr. Ashok Sarupariya (P.W.23) and Dr. Sua Lal Meena, who issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/57) taking note of 13 sharp weapon injuries on the dead body. The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock caused/brought on by the severance of carotid artery and bleeding caused due to multiple injuries. (h) The two accused-appellants were arrested vide Arrest Memos Ex.P/18 (Ashok Kumar Bishnoi) (at 05:50 p.m.) and Ex.P/19 (Jai Ram) (at 05:55 p.m.). The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock caused/brought on by the severance of carotid artery and bleeding caused due to multiple injuries. (h) The two accused-appellants were arrested vide Arrest Memos Ex.P/18 (Ashok Kumar Bishnoi) (at 05:50 p.m.) and Ex.P/19 (Jai Ram) (at 05:55 p.m.). In neither of these two memoranda was it noted that the clothes worn by the accused were stained with blood; (i) As per the seizure memo Ex.P/16 prepared on 08.10.2011 at 5:35 p.m., personal search of the accused-appellant Jai Ram was undertaken, and during the process, two mobile sims were recovered and seized from his pant pocket; (j) As per the seizure memo Ex.P/17 prepared on 08.10.2011 at 5:45 p.m., personal search of the accused-appellant Ashok was undertaken and during the process, two NOKIA mobile phones with sims, a purse with cash, a diary and sim of IDEA company were recovered and seized from his pant pocket. A total of Rs.156/- were found in the purse; (k) The clothes worn by the accused Jai Ram were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.P/20 prepared on 08.10.2011 at 6:10 p.m.; wherein it was recorded for the first time that the same were stained with blood; (l) The clothes worn by the accused Ashok were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.P/21 prepared on 08.10.2011 at 6:20 p.m. and it was recorded for the first time that the same were stained with blood; (m) The Investigating Officer, Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W. 27) claims that the accused-persons gave him informations recorded in memos Ex.P/60 dated 09.10.2011 at 02:15 p.m. (Jai Ram), and Ex.P/61, dated 09.10.2011 at 02:30 p.m. (Ashok), regarding they having thrown away the knives which were used to assault the deceased and the cloth pieces used to clean the blood, in a field nearby the place where the murder was committed. Acting in furtherance of such informations, the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered and seized two knives, a screwdriver as well as two blood stained cloth pieces vide seizure memos Ex.P/28 and Ex.P/29 respectively. Acting in furtherance of such informations, the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered and seized two knives, a screwdriver as well as two blood stained cloth pieces vide seizure memos Ex.P/28 and Ex.P/29 respectively. (n) The seized articles i.e. blood stains lifted from the car, blood stained matting collected from the car, blood stained seat cover, the blood stained clothes collected from the dead body, the blood stained soil lying near the car, the clothes worn by two accused persons, the two knives and the two blood stained pieces of cloths allegedly recovered at their instance were forwarded to the FSL, from where a report Ex.P/67 was received, as per which, all these articles tested positive for ‘A’ group blood. (o) The accused were put up for test identification proceedings, which were recorded in memos Ex.P/13 (Jai Ram) and Ex.P/14 (Ashok). 6. After concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer, proceeded to file a charge sheet against the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 IPC. Both the offences were sessions triable and hence, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the above offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and exhibited 73 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, both the accused claimed to be innocent and stated that they had been falsely implicated. They were proceeding on foot from their village to Sanwariyaji Temple when the police caught hold of them and forcibly seized their personal articles and clothes. 7. After hearing arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. 8. Mr. P.S. Solanki, learned Amicus Curiae representing the accused appellant Ashok, and Mr. Shekhar Mewara, learned counsel representing the accused appellant Jai Ram, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The FIR (Ex.P/65) is a post-investigation document. The Investigating Officer Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) fabricated the documents and falsely implicated the appellants in this case and manipulated evidence to somehow or the other prove the case of the prosecution. The FIR (Ex.P/65) is a post-investigation document. The Investigating Officer Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) fabricated the documents and falsely implicated the appellants in this case and manipulated evidence to somehow or the other prove the case of the prosecution. They further submitted that the recoveries, which have been shown at the instance of the accused appellants are fabricated. That the identification of the appellants in the test identification proceedings and in the Court by the witnesses Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1), Sohan Singh (P.W.9) and Shambhoo Lal (P.W.7) is manipulated and unreliable. The first informant Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) admitted in his crossexamination that the police called him to the police station and showed him two persons and instructed that these two would be presented in jail for identification and that he should remember their faces so that they could be identified properly. Shambhu Lal (P.W.7) turned hostile and Sohan Singh (P.W.9) refused to identify the accused in the court and as such, it was the contention of the learned defence counsel that the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the identification of the accused as carried out before the Executive Magistrate constituted substantive evidence of identification and that their identification as the assailants was trustworthy is totally perverse. They further urged that the Investigating Officer claims to have got lifted finger prints from the car and specimen finger prints of the accused were also collected, but comparison of these finger prints was never got conducted through the FSL and hence, it is apparent that the investigating agency has concealed material evidence from the court. They, urged that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is based purely on conjectures and surmises and the impugned judgment suffers from lacunae and perversity, hence, the same should be quashed and set aside. They, implored the court to accept the appeal and acquit the appellants of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He contended that the Investigating Officer had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. The appellants are residents of Barmer and they were apprehended from a field nearby the place of incident immediately after the murder. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He contended that the Investigating Officer had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. The appellants are residents of Barmer and they were apprehended from a field nearby the place of incident immediately after the murder. The first informant Rajesh Sharma correctly identified the accused appellants as the persons who had engaged his taxi with driver Lokesh and as such, the burden would shift upon the appellants to explain the circumstances under which, the driver Lokesh was found murdered just an hour after they took the taxi on hire. The clothes worn by the accused, seized at the time of their arrest and the blood stained articles (knives and the pieces of clothes used to clean the blood) seized at their instance tested positive for presence of ‘A’ group blood. The accused could not explain as to how their clothes and the weapons etc. were found stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the accused appellants tried to loot the car being driven by Lokesh and when he resisted, he was brutally murdered. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has placed unimpeachable circumstantial evidence on record to prove its case against the appellants and hence, the appeal should be dismissed. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 11. The entire prosecution case is based primarily on three circumstances, viz. (a) Last seen theory to the effect that the appellants were the persons, who had engaged the taxi/Tavera car of the complainant, on which the deceased Lokesh Salvi was engaged as driver, and as the driver was found murdered soon thereafter, the circumstances in which he was done to death were in the exclusive knowledge of the appellants, who failed to offer any explanation for the same. (b) Recoveries of the blood stained clothes and weapons. (c) As the accused were strangers and were not known from before, the circumstance of last seen would hinge on identification of the accused by the material witnesses. 12. For considering the aspect of identification of the accused, we would be first referring to the evidence of the Investigating Officer Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27). (c) As the accused were strangers and were not known from before, the circumstance of last seen would hinge on identification of the accused by the material witnesses. 12. For considering the aspect of identification of the accused, we would be first referring to the evidence of the Investigating Officer Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27). As per the prosecution case, the car of the complainant Rajesh Sharma was engaged by the accused at 09:00 a.m. and the news regarding the alleged murder was received by the complainant just an hour later. Shri Rakesh Joshi, the Investigating Officer (the then SHO, Police Station Bhadsoda), when examined as P.W.27, deposed that he received telephonic information of the murder at the Police Station Bhadsoda. It has been brought out in the cross-examination of the witness that the telephonic information was received by him at 09.50 am. and five minutes thereafter, the police team left the police staiton and reached the place of incident, which was at a distance of just 4 kms. from the police station, at around 10:15 a.m. He categorically stated that the bystanders informed him that the accused had escaped in the nearby fields and thus, he instructed the Police Constables referred to supra to pursue the suspects, who were apprehended and presented before him at 11:05 a.m. They were immediately sent to the police station. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) submitted the written report (Ex.P/1) to the Investigating Officer at 11:15 a.m. The Investigating Officer admitted that the accused had been detained before lodging of the written report, but no document/memo was prepared regarding their detention. He also admitted that the report (Ex.P/1) was drafted by his clerk upon his dictation. 13. As the written report was drafted under the instructions of the Investigating Officer, the omission of the fact that the accused had been detained beforehand is an intentional omission/concealment and throws a grave doubt on the conduct of the Investigating Officer. Even in the endorsement made after formally receiving the report, the Investigating Officer did not record that the accused had been apprehended, though the fact remains that the detention of the accused was prior in point of time. The Investigating Officer tried to evade this aspect of the matter claiming that he received the information regarding the detention of the accused at a later point of time. The Investigating Officer tried to evade this aspect of the matter claiming that he received the information regarding the detention of the accused at a later point of time. However, apparently, this claim of the Investigating Officer is totally false because he admitted in his cross-examination that after the suspects were detained (at 11:05 a.m.), it is he, who instructed that they should be taken to the police station. The Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that right from the detention of the accused, till their arrest, they were not kept “Baparda”, meaning thereby the faces of the accused were not covered between 11:05 a.m. to 05:50 p.m. when they were formally shown arrested. 14. Now we proceed to examine the evidence of the concerned witnesses regarding identification of the accused. The first informant Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) stated in his evidence that the two appellants approached him on 08.10.2011 while he was standing near the Roadways Bus Stand with his Tavera car. They desired to engage a vehicle. The rental was fixed at Rs.1500/- and the accused left with Lokesh in the Tavera car bearing registration No.RJ-09-UA-2957. He also stated that 15 to 20 days after the incident, he, Sohan Singh and Shambhu Lal were called to Kapasan Jail for identification of the accused and all of them successfully identified the two accused as the persons, who had taken the car on hire. In cross-examination the witness admitted that the report (Ex.P/1) was written by the police officers. He stayed at the Police Station Bhadsoda for about one to one and a half hours. There, the police officers showed him two persons and told him that they were Ashok and Jai Ram. The faces of these two persons were not covered. The police officers told him that these were the persons, who had taken his car on hire and that he should remember their faces carefully so that he could successfully identify them in the proceedings at jail. The witness also admitted that when the two suspects were shown to him at the Police Station and he got the instructions to identify them later, he did not notice any blood stains on their clothes. The witness also admitted that when the two suspects were shown to him at the Police Station and he got the instructions to identify them later, he did not notice any blood stains on their clothes. He also admitted that he was able to identify the two assailants in the court because they were the same persons, who were shown to him at the police station and this was the only reason as to why he was saying that Ashok and Jai Ram took his taxi on hire. On a pertinent question put in cross-examination, the witness admitted that the two persons, who had engaged his taxi on the fateful day did not give out their names and details and he saw them for a very short interval of time and thus, he could not remember them. He was implicating Ashok and Jai Ram for the incident on the instructions of the police officials. Regarding his signatures on the recovery memos Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/10, the witness stated that the police officers instructed him to sign blank papers and he complied. 15. Shambhoo Lal (P.W.7) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that the police officials showed him the photographs of Ashok and Jai Ram and instructed him to identify them in the jail. He refuted the suggestion of the prosecutor that the two accused present in the court were the persons, who had engaged the taxi of the informant. 16. Sohan Singh (P.W.9) categorically stated in his examinationin- chief that the accused present in the court were not the persons whom he had identified in the Kapasan Jail. 17. On an over all appreciation and analysis of the evidence referred to supra, it becomes clear that the witnesses Shambhoo Lal (P.W.7) and Sohan Singh (P.W.9) did not identify the accused appellants as the persons, who had taken the taxi on hire. So far as the first informant Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) is concerned, he categorically stated that the names of the two accused were mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/65) by the police officials and that the accused were shown to him at the police station and he was then instructed by the police officials to identify the accused in the identification proceedings. So far as the first informant Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) is concerned, he categorically stated that the names of the two accused were mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/65) by the police officials and that the accused were shown to him at the police station and he was then instructed by the police officials to identify the accused in the identification proceedings. This assertion of the witness is corroborated when we examine the evidence of the Investigating Officer Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27), who admitted in his crossexamination that the accused were detained at 11:05 a.m., i.e. well before lodging of the FIR and they were kept at the police station without their faces being covered till the arrest memos (Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/19) were prepared at 05:50 and 05:55 p.m. respectively. Without any doubt, the witnesses got the opportunity to see the accused in this interval. 18. Manifestly, thus, the prosecution case regarding the appellants having been identified as the two assailants, who had engaged the Taxi/Tavera vehicle of the complainant on 08.10.2011 is unworthy of credence and the evidence of identification of the accused appellants deserves to be discarded. The deposition of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) also gives a strong indication that the SHO Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) fabricated evidence in the case to the extent that he got the FIR drafted with totally manipulated facts. 19. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that for holding the identification of the appellants to be reliable, the trial Court placed reliance on the test identification memos Ex.P/13 (Jai Ram) and Ex.P/14 (Ashok), which by itself do not constitute substantive evidence. The substantive evidence would be constituted by identification of the accused where the witnesses deposed in court. We have already concluded that neither the test identification proceedings were faithful, nor the concerned witnesses could identify the accused in the court satisfactorily and thus, the identification of the accused fails. 20. Once, the identification of the accused is excluded, the only evidence which remains in hands of the prosecution is in the form of the so called incriminating recoveries effected from the accused. The recoveries which the Investigating Officer claims to have effected so as to incriminate the accused appellants in this case are of their own clothes and that of the weapons (knives) and two cloth pieces, which the accused allegedly used for cleaning their hands. The recoveries which the Investigating Officer claims to have effected so as to incriminate the accused appellants in this case are of their own clothes and that of the weapons (knives) and two cloth pieces, which the accused allegedly used for cleaning their hands. Suffice it to say that the sequence of recoveries would have to be considered in reference to the time of actual detention of the accused because the arrest memos were admittedly prepared well after their detention. As has been mentioned above, the Investigating Officer Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) admitted in his cross-examination that the accusedappellants were detained and were sent to the Police Station at 11:05 a.m., i.e. well before lodging of the F.I.R. This conduct of the Investigating Officer is totally unfair and brings the entire investigation under a grave cloud of doubt. Shri Rakesh Joshi, the Investigating Officer (P.W.27) stated that on reaching the spot, he sent the Head Constables Sangram Singh, Shyam Lal, Babu Lal, Constables Amichand, Arjun Lal, Hanuman and female Constable Jamna to persue and apprehend the accused. These Head Constables and Constables caught hold of the accused and brought them before the SHO at 11:05 a.m. and they were sent to the Police Station. However, not even one of the Head Constables or Constables named above, were examined by the prosecution so as to lend any credence to this apparently cooked up story. 21. Suffice it to say, the theory regarding the clothes of the accused being stained with blood falls flat on the face when we peruse the statement of the informant Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1), who admitted in cross-examination that when he was shown the two accused persons at the Police Station, he did not notice that their clothes were stained with blood. Even in the Arrest Memos Ex.P/18 (Ashok Kumar) and Ex.P/19 (Jai Ram), it is not mentioned that the clothes worn by the accused appellants were stained with blood. The clothes were seized vide Seizure Memos Ex.P/20 (Jai Ram) and Ex.P/21 (Ashok). The Investigating Officer Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) admitted in his cross-examination that the seizure was made first and then the accused were arrested. This sequence as deposed by the Investigating Officer runs contrary to the documentary evidence. The clothes were seized vide Seizure Memos Ex.P/20 (Jai Ram) and Ex.P/21 (Ashok). The Investigating Officer Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) admitted in his cross-examination that the seizure was made first and then the accused were arrested. This sequence as deposed by the Investigating Officer runs contrary to the documentary evidence. The prosecution could have examined the Head Constables/Constables, who allegedly apprehended the accused persons to fortify the assertion that when the accused were apprehended, their clothes were stained with blood. However, as has been mentioned above, not a single of them was examined at the trial. 22. The Seizure Memos of the clothes of the accused were attested by Panch witnesses Shankar and Sohan Singh, who were examined as P.W.14 and P.W.8 respectively. The witness Sohan Lal (P.W.8) categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that the police seized only the mobile sims and the clothes and nothing else. The witness was declared hostile thereafter and was crossexamined by the learned Public Prosecutor, upon which, he stated that the blood stained clothes of the accused were also seized by the police. The witness stated that when the Memoranda Ex.P/16 to Ex.P/21 were prepared, the faces of the accused were not covered. This admission of the witness makes his testimony doubtful because the Investigating Officer claims that the accused were kept Baparda immediately after being arrested. 23. Shanker (P.W.14) refuted the prosecution case and denied that he had signed the Memoranda Ex.P/16 to Ex.P/21. We have ourselves compared the signatures of Shanker as appended on the Memorandums Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21, by which, the clothes of the accused were seized, and the signatures appended by the witness on the statement in court and find that there is a stark difference in the two sets of signatures, which again brings the Investigating Officer’s conduct under doubt. Apparently, Shanker (P.W. 14) was not the person who signed these two Memoranda. 24. The Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the weapons of offence i.e. the knives and the blood stained cloth pieces in furtherance of the informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, when we peruse the statement of the Investigating Officer, it comes to the light that the evidence which he has given regarding the so called informations recorded vide Ex.P/60 and Ex.P/61, is totally perfunctory and unacceptable. However, when we peruse the statement of the Investigating Officer, it comes to the light that the evidence which he has given regarding the so called informations recorded vide Ex.P/60 and Ex.P/61, is totally perfunctory and unacceptable. He did not elaborate upon the words spoken by the accused constituting the informations, which were taken down into writing. Only a superficial statement was made that the accused gave informations which were reduced into writing vide Memoranda Ex,.P/60 and Ex.P/61. This Court has time and again, held that in order to prove an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Investigating Officer would have to state the exact words spoken by the accused and only then, it can be accepted that the information has been proved as per law. Reference in this regard may be had to judgment rendered by this Court in Daau Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan [2019 3 Raj LW 1843 (Raj.)]. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer claims that the recovery of the knives and the clothes was effected from the very same place where the accused hid themselves. If the site plans prepared by the Investigating Officer while seizing these articles vide Memoranda Ex.P/28 and Ex.P/29 are seen, it is not possible to precisely conclude as to what was the distance of the place of recovery from the place where the deceased Lokesh was murdered. Therefore, these recoveries are totally tainted and unreliable. 25. The SHO Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W. 27) did not state in his evidence as to how the seized articles were kept after the seizure. He did not even state that the articles were handed over to any authorised person for depositing them in the Malkhana. He gave totally perfunctory evidence stating that the seized articles were forwarded to the FSL for analysis with a Constable vide Memo/forwarding letter Ex.P/34. 26. Shri Sangram Singh (P.W.29) was the Malkhana Incharge. He stated that the articles of this case were deposited by the SHO on 08.10.2011 and 09.10.2011. The entry thereof was made in the Malkhana register (Ex.P.70). 17 articles were forwarded to the FSL through Constable Parbat Singh (P.W.18), who took the articles to the Superintendent of Police Office and brought back the receipt (Ex.P/36) dated 03.11.2011. The second envelope of finger prints was forwarded to the FSL through Constable Durga Narayan and receipt (Ex.P/37) was brought back by him on 23.11.2011. 17 articles were forwarded to the FSL through Constable Parbat Singh (P.W.18), who took the articles to the Superintendent of Police Office and brought back the receipt (Ex.P/36) dated 03.11.2011. The second envelope of finger prints was forwarded to the FSL through Constable Durga Narayan and receipt (Ex.P/37) was brought back by him on 23.11.2011. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the date of deposition of the seized articles in the Malkhana is not mentioned in the register. 27. Shri Parbat Singh (P.W. 18) stated that 17 sealed packets of this case were handed over to him by Sangram Singh, Head Constable and he took them to SP Office, Chittorgarh, from where he collected the forwarding letter (Ex.P/35) and deposited the articles at the FSL Udaipur. 28. Nonetheless, when we consider the fact that the Seizure Officer i.e. the SHO Shri Rakesh Joshi (P.W.27) has remained totally silent regarding the handing over of the articles to the Malkhana Incharge and as there is no reference of the date of depositing the same in the Malkhana register (Ex.P/70), the sanctity of the link evidence required to prove the safe keeping of the seized articles is totally compromised. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Investigating Officer was indulged in manipulation and fabrication of evidence right from the time of lodging of the FIR. Hence, the so called incriminating recoveries do not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon. 29. An additional piece of fabrication by the Investigating Officer is manifested from the alleged seizure of the voter identity card and the driving licence of the accused Ashok from the car vide Memo Ex.P/7, which was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 08.10.2011 at 12:45 p.m. Before that, the Sub-Inspector Shri Sikander Khan (P.W. 28) had carried out a detailed inspection of the vehicle in question and prepared the MTO report (Ex.P/64) at 10:30 a.m. Shri Sikander Khan categorically stated in his crossexamination that he did not notice any document on the seat or on the dash board of the vehicle. As the witness was an officer assigned with specialized duty to carry out inspections of the vehicles, it is impossible to believe that he would not have noticed the vital documents disclosing identity of the accused when inspection of the vehicle in question was undertaken and the report Ex.P/64 was prepared. As the witness was an officer assigned with specialized duty to carry out inspections of the vehicles, it is impossible to believe that he would not have noticed the vital documents disclosing identity of the accused when inspection of the vehicle in question was undertaken and the report Ex.P/64 was prepared. The Voter Identity Card and the driving license are prominent documents. There was no chance of the inspector missing out on these documents, if they were actually lying on the seat at the time of inspection. 30. As has been mentioned above, the accused persons were already in the clutches of the Investigating Officer at 11:05 a.m. and thus, it was absolutely convenient for him to collect these identity documents and plant the same in the car, which precisely appears to be the correct scenario vindicating our conclusion that the entire investigation is fabricated. 31. The Investigating Officer collected the finger prints from the car and so also the specimen finger prints of the accused, however, the fate of the comparison of these finger prints remains in dark because the FSL report was never exhibited at the trial. 32. As the two incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution viz. the identification of the accused and the so called recoveries, have been found to be fabricated/unreliable, there remains nothing on record so as to connect the accused with the crime of murdering Lokesh Salvi. The findings recorded by the trial court while concluding the guilt of the accused at Para No.36 of the impugned judgment are totally conjectural and speculative. 33. Law is well settled that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove the complete chain of circumstances by leading unimpeachable evidence consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the guilt of anyone else. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to prove even a single, of the so called incriminating circumstances so as to connect the appellants with the crime. 34. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that as the prosecution case is based on fabricated evidence, the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 35. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 35. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 12.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.8/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 397 IPC. They shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 36. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment, on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.