JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Vyas, J. - Vide this order, Death reference in relation to convict Ankur Padiya and Criminal appeals of convicts Ankur Padiya,Anoop Padiya, Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh, preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2018 and 19.12.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota, in Sessions Case No. 09/2015 (CIS No. 1/2015) Filing No. 478/2015, are being disposed of. 2. According to brief facts of the case, the matter arose out of a written report dated 09.10.2014, Exhibit-P.24, submitted by complainant Puneet Handa son of Madan Mohan Handa, registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota. It was alleged in the report that the complainant resided in House No. 398 Talwandi, Kota. On 09.10.2014, his son Rudraksh, aged seven years, was playing in Hanuman Park at around 5-5:30 PM. The park was situated behind the house of complainant. The complainant received a phone call on his landline no. 0744-2426222 informing him that his son had been kidnapped. The person who made the call abused the complainant and identified himself as Jaffar Mohammad. He demanded ransom of Rs. two crore and threatened that the matter should not be reported to the police. The complainant told him that he was not in a position to arrange this huge amount of money, to which that person threatened him to deposit as much as he could, since he (complainant) was working in a bank and his wife was also working as Teacher in a Convent School. The complainant and his family members searched for the child in the neighbourhood, but to no avail. Hence, the complainant lodged the written report. On the basis of the written report, FIR (Exhibit-P.25) was registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota. Next day in the morning, dead body of Rudraksh was found in a canal. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the concerned court. Charges were framed against the convicts, the convicts pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined 110 witnesses and exhibited 523 documents. The convicts were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The convicts claimed that the statements of witnesses were false. 4. Convict Ankur Padiya replied that he had no idea about the case. Charges were framed against the convicts, the convicts pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined 110 witnesses and exhibited 523 documents. The convicts were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The convicts claimed that the statements of witnesses were false. 4. Convict Ankur Padiya replied that he had no idea about the case. On 10.10.2014 he had gone to Delhi and when he returned back, police called him and informed about the case. He was made to sign on some blank papers by the police and was told that there was great pressure of public and media regarding this case. He was also told to cooperate in the matter and promise was made that he would be released soon. On the date of incident, he was in the office. 5. Convict Anoop Padiya replied that on 27.10.2014 when he was in his Lucknow office, 2-3 police officials came there and informed him that standing warrant had been issued against him and he was required to go to Kota. He was made to sign a few blank papers by the police. He further replied that he had no knowledge of the case. 6. Convict Mahaveer made a statement in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He had no knowledge about the case. 7. Convict Karanjeet replied that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He had never been to Kota nor he had any acquaintance with any person in Kota. SIMs were not sold by him. He had no knowledge about the person who sold the SIMs to Ankur Padiya and Anoop Padiya. 8. In defence, one witness was examined and as many as sixteen documents were exhibited. 9. Learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota vide judgment dated 26.02.2018, convicted and sentenced the accused as under :- Ankur Padiya U/s. 302 IPC : Death sentence with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 364A IPC : Death sentence with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 379 IPC : One years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. U/s. 364A IPC : Death sentence with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 379 IPC : One years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo two months additional SIMple imprisonment. U/s. 65 I.T. Act : Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66B I.T. Act: Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66C I.T. Act : Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66D I.T. Act : Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. Anoop Padiya @ Santosh Singh U/s 302/120B IPC : Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 364A/120B IPC: Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 212 IPC : Three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66B I.T. Act: Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66C I.T. Act : Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.75,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66D I.T. Act : Three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.70,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. Mahaveer Sharma U/s. 201 IPC : Four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66D I.T. Act : Three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.70,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. Mahaveer Sharma U/s. 201 IPC : Four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. Karanjeet Singh U/s. 66B I.T. Act : Two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. "We find that before passing the order of sentence against accused-Ankur Padiya, an opportunity of hearing, as required under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. was not given. In view of the above, we set aside the order of sentence, qua accused-Ankur Padiya, with remand of the case to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh order on the sentence after following the procedure given under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C, as explained by the Apex Court in various judgments referred to above. The trial court shall complete the proceedings for passing a fresh order on the sentence within a period of three months from 4th October, 2018 and pass a fresh order on the sentence. We, accordingly, decline the death sentence at this stage. As the matter has been remanded to the trial court, the jail authorities are directed to produce accused-Ankur Padiya before the court below on 4th October, 2018. Accordingly, the trial court will proceed in the matter from the aforesaid date and complete the proceedings within a period of three months. With the aforesaid, appeal of accused-Ankur Padiya is disposed of. The record of the case may be sent back to the trial court. Since appeal, qua accused-appellant No.1-Ankur Padiya, has been decided, amended cause title be filed. In view of the above, application-Inward No.7211/2018 filed by accused-Ankur Padiya stands disposed of. DB Criminal Appeal No.114/2018 (Anoop Padiva & Santosh Singh Vs. State of Raj.). D.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.528/2018 (Mahaveer Sharma Vs. State of Raj.) & D.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.566/2018 (Karanieet Singh Vs. State of Raj.): To await fresh order of sentence to be passed by the trial court, qua Ankur Padiya. List these cases after three months." 11. DB Criminal Appeal No.114/2018 (Anoop Padiva & Santosh Singh Vs. State of Raj.). D.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.528/2018 (Mahaveer Sharma Vs. State of Raj.) & D.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.566/2018 (Karanieet Singh Vs. State of Raj.): To await fresh order of sentence to be passed by the trial court, qua Ankur Padiya. List these cases after three months." 11. The trial court, after affording opportunity of hearing as required under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide judgment dated 19.12.2018 held the accused Ankur Padiya guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 364A, 379 of IPC read with Sections 65, 66B, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act and sentenced him as under :- Ankur Padiya: U/s. 302 IPC : Death sentence with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo one year additional imprisonment. U/s. 364A IPC : Death sentence with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo one year additional imprisonment. U/s. 379 IPC : One years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo one months additional imprisonment. U/s. 65 I.T. Act : One years SIMple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo one months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66B I.T. Act: One years SIMple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo one months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66C I.T. Act : One years SIMple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo one months additional imprisonment. U/s. 66D I.T. Act : One years SIMple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo one months additional imprisonment. 12. D.B. Criminal Death Reference No.01/2019 has been made by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota for confirmation of the death sentence. 13. On behalf of convicts, it has been argued that this is a case of media trial. The convicts were declared guilty even before commencement of the trial due to various news item published in print and electronic media. 13. On behalf of convicts, it has been argued that this is a case of media trial. The convicts were declared guilty even before commencement of the trial due to various news item published in print and electronic media. The Bar Association of Kota had passed a resolution that no advocate will appear in the case of Rudraksh, due to which no experienced advocate was provided to the accused-appellants to defend themselves and less experienced advocate was engaged at the initial stage who was not a member of the Bar Association. Thus, no proper and effective legal assistance was available to the accused during trial of the case. The Press was publishing various news item and photographs of the appellant-Ankur Padiya and TV media was also broadcasting various facts and even photographs of appellant-Ankur Padiya. In the light of these facts, the trial of the case is in violation of the fundamental rights of the accused-appellant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Virtually, it was a media trial and appellant-Ankur Padiya was pronounced guilty even before completion of the investigation and filing of charge-sheet. 14. It has been further submitted that evidence which has been produced on behalf of the prosecution is contradictory, untrustworthy and such evidence cannot be made basis for conviction for such grave offences. The story of Jaffar Mohammad demanding Rs. two crore as ransom, was introduced intentionally on the next day after finding the dead body of Rudraksh. It is also important that no threatening to kill was given. If a person is demanding ransom, then he will wait for some time and will not kill within a short time. All the facts show that Rudraksh was taken by some other person due to some reason and just after that he died, and when there was agitation in the morning, then this story of demand of ransom by Jaffar Mohammad was introduced. Recoveries which have been shown to be made at the instance of convicts, are false and implanted. There is no evidence that mobile instrument containing IMEI no.357065051063630 (recovered) was of the accused-appellant. This story has been introduced falsely by the investigating agency with intention to implicate accused-appellant Ankur Padiya in this case. Recoveries which have been shown to be made at the instance of convicts, are false and implanted. There is no evidence that mobile instrument containing IMEI no.357065051063630 (recovered) was of the accused-appellant. This story has been introduced falsely by the investigating agency with intention to implicate accused-appellant Ankur Padiya in this case. The prosecution has come-up with the case that there were eight cameras installed at the house of PW-16 Pramod Avasthi and two cameras at the house of PW-66 Jalaj Vyas. CCTV cameras' evidence is the backbone of the prosecution case and it goes to the root of the case. It is also important to note that an application was moved before this court which was registered as D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 2/2019, wherein it was prayed that copies of CDs of these cameras be provided to the counsel for the appellant, however, this court disposed of the application by only directing the registry or the authority to prepare a copy of the CDs seized through Exhibit-P.30. Thus, no order has been passed for giving the CDs of all eight cameras of which the DVRs were seized through Exhibit-P.29. The FSL report Exhibit-P.226 is related to the duplicate DVR which was prepared by the investigating agency with intention to implicate the appellant. From the duplicate DVR one CD of camera Nos. 1 & 4 was prepared and sent to the FSL, in which some disturbed numbers of a vehicle have been shown. Non-supply of DVR with CDs as per Exhibits-P.29 and 30, violates the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. There are material contradictions and infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution. Convict Ankur Padiya has been falsely implicated on the basis of untrustworthy and fabricated evidence and such conviction cannot be legally sustained. It has been argued on behalf of other convicts Anoop Padiya, Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh that they have been convicted without any iota of evidence against them. 15. It was further submitted on behalf of convicts Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh that provisions of Probation of Offenders Act have not been taken into consideration while passing sentence against them. They are entitled to be released on probation for good conduct, looking to the nature of the offence for which they have been convicted and the fact that there was no previous conviction against them. 16. They are entitled to be released on probation for good conduct, looking to the nature of the offence for which they have been convicted and the fact that there was no previous conviction against them. 16. It was submitted on behalf of the convicts that they have been prejudiced by media trial which was held in this case. Convict Ankur Padiya was detained by the police on 14.10.2014,but his formal arrest has been shown on 27.10.2014. Photo of Ankur Padiya was published in newspaper on 15.10.2014 and his photo was also circulated on social media. Thus, he was declared guilty even before completion of the investigation. The entire investigation was unfair. Police investigated the case just to file the charge-sheet against him. Evidence collected on the basis of such defective investigation, cannot be relied upon. 17. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon following judgments :- (i) Hanuman Govind, Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 (ii) Mohinder Singh v. The State AIR 1953 SC 415 (iii) Eradu and Others v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316 (iv) Santa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 526 (v) Ram Chandra and Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 (vi) Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 747 (vii) Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore AIR 1960 SC 29 (viii) R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 (ix) Ishwari Prasad Misa v. Mohammed Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 (x) Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119 (xi) Laxmipat Choraria and Ors v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 938 (xii) In re: P.C. Sen AIR 1970 SC 1821 (xiii) Kali Ram v. State of H.P. AIR 1973 SC 2773 (xiv) State of U.P. v. Hari Prasad and others AIR 1974 SC 1740 (xv) Jamuna Choudhary and Ors v. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822 (xvi) Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 483 (xvii) Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2386 (xviii) Hari Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1979 R.C.C. (4) 106 (xix) Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1979 R.C.C. (4) 106 (xix) Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 917 (xx) Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 1 SCC 700 (xxi) Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan 1987 RCC 425 (xxii) Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1989 Supp(2) SCC 21 (xxiii) Malkiat Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1991) 4 SCC 341 (xxiv) Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 (xxv) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. And Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853 (xxvi) Vijender and Ors. v. State of Delhi (1997) 6 SCC 171 (xxvii) Ravindra v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 3031 (xxviii) Vijayan alias Rajan v. State of Kerala AIR 1999 SC 1086 (xxix) State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1066 (xxx) Suresh Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 2000 SC 2207 (xxxi) Nirmal Pasi and Ors. v. State of Bihar JT 2002 (6) SC 28 (xxxii) Mohinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4399 (xxxiii) M.P. Lohia, etc. v. State of West Bengal and another AIR 2005 SC 790 (xxxiv) Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan JT 2000 (7) SC 549 (xxxv) Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2005 SC 2804 (xxxvi) Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007)128 SCC 341 (xxxvii) Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2007 CRI.L.J. 170 (xxxviii) A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. v. Government of A.P. and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1546 (xxxix) Asraf Ali v. State of Assam AIR (2008) 16 SCC 328 (xl) The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government v. Subair and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1189 (xli) Ganesh Gogoi v. State of Assam AIR 2009 SC 2955 (xlii) Musheer Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748 (xliii) Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) AIR 2010 SC 2352 (xliv) Meghmala and Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383 (xlv) State of U.P. v. Mohd. Iqram and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2296 (xlvi) Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3422 (xlvii) Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. and Anr. v. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383 (xlv) State of U.P. v. Mohd. Iqram and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 2296 (xlvi) Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3422 (xlvii) Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. and Anr. AIR 2013 SC 1132 (xlviii) Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Ors v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417 (xlix) Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178 (l) Seeni Nainar Mohammed and Ors v. State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police (2017) 13 SCC 685 (li) Navneethakrishnan v. The State AIR 2018 SC 2027 (lii) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider and Ors (2019) 2 SCC 303 (liii) Gargi v. State of Haryana (2019) 9 SCC 738 (liv) P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors AIR 2020 SC 1 18. It has been submitted on behalf of prosecution that different circumstances, which prove the involvement of accused-appellants in commission of the crime, have been proved by cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence. Thus, the circumstances which have been proved against the accused-appellants, form a complete chain which is unbroken and conclusively point towards the guilt of the convicts. The statements of witnesses are consistent and trustworthy. In cross-examination, the testimony of the prosecution evidence has not been shaken. The contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution evidence, are minor and insignificant and do not adversely affect the prosecution case. The prosecution evidence inspires confidence in material particulars. The prosecution has been able to prove motive, preparation, previous and subsequent conduct of the convicts. Apart from this, several recoveries have been made at the instance of convicts. Medical and forensic evidence also support the prosecution case. There is adequate evidence to prove that several SIMs were used in the course of commission of the crime, which have been proved by call details which were exhibited during prosecution evidence. The prosecution has relied upon the following judgment :- (i) Vikram Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 254 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. 20. In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, law is well settled. In Anjan Kumar Sarma and Ors. Vs. v. State of Punjab 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 254 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. 20. In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, law is well settled. In Anjan Kumar Sarma and Ors. Vs. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359 , it has been held as follows:- "..Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court are: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the Accused is guilty; (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 21. The prosecution has relied upon various circumstances against the convicts. 22. PW-4 Puneet Handa deposed about the facts of the FIR that his son was kidnapped from Hanuman Vatika Park which was behind his house. He received a call on his landline no.0744-2426222. Some person, who identified himself as Jaffar Mohammad, threatened him (complainant), abused him and demanded ransom of two crore rupees. He has also deposed about the search made by him, other family members and neighbours for his son Rudraksh. His son was not found. On next day morning, dead body of Rudraksh was found. One handkerchief was tied on the mouth of Rudraksh and one handkerchief each was tied on his hands and feet. The dead body of Rudraksh was recovered from a canal. PW-7 Dr. Ramgopal Meena has proved the postmortem report. He has stated that he was member of the Medical Board constituted to conduct postmortem of Rudraksh. As per postmortem report Exhibit-P.26, following injuries were found on the body of Rudraksh :- 23. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature with fresh duration. PW-7 Dr. Ramgopal Meena has proved the postmortem report. He has stated that he was member of the Medical Board constituted to conduct postmortem of Rudraksh. As per postmortem report Exhibit-P.26, following injuries were found on the body of Rudraksh :- 23. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature with fresh duration. Cause of death, as opined was as under :- 24. Thus, as per postmortem report, the cause of death of Rudraksh was opined as asphyxia due to drowning. Sample of blood from the body of Rudraksh was taken for examination. PW-8 Dr. P.K. Tiwari has also deposed to prove the postmortem report Exhibit-P.26. Blood sample of Rudraksh was sent to FSL for examination. FSL report has been exhibited as P-387, which reads as under :- " DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES 1. Blood Sample of Sh. Rudraksh in packet marked 1. RESULT OF EXAMINATION On chemical examination, Blood sample (1) from one packet market 1 gave positive tests for the presence of Chloroform and Ethyl Alcohol and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and insecticides. The quantity of Ethyl Alcohol estimated in Blood sample (1) from packet marked (1) was found to be 177.59 mg per 100 ml." 25. pw-4 complainant Puneet Handa deposed that on 09.10.2014 he received a call on his landline phone no.0744-2426222 from Mobile no.8882827457. He further deposed that on 14.10.2014 at about 12 noon he received a call from some unknown person on his landline phone. That unknown person was speaking in Hadoti dialect and identified himself as Jaffar Mohammad and told that you have seen the result of not taking me seriously. Now the boy who has been held-up at police station Bheemganj Mandi, he is my boy and get him released otherwise more murders will follow". 26. After the incident of 09.10.2014 the landline phone of complainant Puneet Handa was kept on interception and all the calls were being recorded. On 14.10.2014 one call from mobileno.90156870352 was received on complainant's landline no.2426222 at 11:57 A.M., which was received by complainant's wife Smt. Shradha Handa. A CD was prepared of the transcript of the phone call which contained voice of the person who made the threatening call. The seizure memo of CD-R or Compact disc Recordable, is Exhibit-P.31, to which Pratap Singh (PW-46) and Ravindra (PW-6) are witnesses. A CD was prepared of the transcript of the phone call which contained voice of the person who made the threatening call. The seizure memo of CD-R or Compact disc Recordable, is Exhibit-P.31, to which Pratap Singh (PW-46) and Ravindra (PW-6) are witnesses. PW-6 Ravindra deposed that during investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared transcript memo of the telephonic conversation which was recorded as Exhibit-P.35. Witness PW-46 Pratap Singh has also proved the transcript memo Exhibit-P.35. The transcript is as under :- 27. Voice sample of convict Ankur Padiya was taken on 09.11.2014 and two CDs were prepared of the voice sample. One CD was sent to FSL for examination and another was control CD. Exhibit-P.93 memo was prepared. PW-46 Pratap Singh and PW-73 Buddhi Prakash have proved Exhibit-P.93. Recording of the threatening call of 14.10.2014 and voice sample of convict Ankur Padiya were sent for comparison to FSL. FSL report of voice sample of convict Ankur Padiya Exhibit-P.385, reads as under :- " DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PACKET(S) RECEIVED 1-Packet-Y :- It contained a CD bearing printed description "SONY CD-R COMPACT disc Recordable SUPREMAS 700 MB" etc. and hand written description "FIR No. 400/14 U/S 364A, 302, 120B IPC PS tokgj uxj dksVk 'kgj ekdZ Y" etc., stated to have recorded specimen voice of Sh. Ankur Padiya, which has been marked as exhibit-Y/1 in this laboratory. 2-Packet-Z :- It contained a CD bearing printed description "SONY CD-R COMPACT disc Recordable SUPREMAS 700 MB" etc., stated to have recorded conversation, which has been marked as exhibit- Z/1 in this laboratory. RESULT OF EXAMINATION The specimen voice of Sh. Ankur Padiya recorded in the audio files namely "Ankur Padia Control Voice.wav" and "Ankur Padia Control Voicel. wav" stored in the CD exhibit-Y/1 have been examined thoroughly and compared with the audio file namely "20141014_11560400.wav" stored in the CD exhibit-Z/1. The acoustic signals of some suitable common verbatim e.g. have been compared using Computerized Speech Lab (CSL). The acoustic analysis of these common verbatim spoken by Sh. Ankur Padiya shows internecine SIMilarity in respect of linguistic & phonetic character, intonation pattern and frequencies." 28. Conduct of the convict prior to and subsequent to the commission of offence is a vital piece of evidence, linking the convict to the crime. The acoustic analysis of these common verbatim spoken by Sh. Ankur Padiya shows internecine SIMilarity in respect of linguistic & phonetic character, intonation pattern and frequencies." 28. Conduct of the convict prior to and subsequent to the commission of offence is a vital piece of evidence, linking the convict to the crime. The prosecution has placed on record certain circumstances which constitute conduct of the convict Ankur Padiya, prior and subsequent to the commission of the offence. One of the circumstances regarding which evidence has been produced by prosecution is, that for the purpose of disguising himself convict Ankur Padiya procured a turban (pagri), artificial mustaches and beard to look like a Sikh person. In this regard, PW-45 Amanpreet Singh deposed in his evidence that nI got acquainted with Ankur Padiya in a Gym. I had been known to him since the year 2008. We used to work-out together. On 26.09.2014 Ankur Padiya called me to Bansal Classes, where he had his stationery business. Ankur Padiya was waiting for me there. He wanted to take me with him somewhere. Ankur Padiyatook me in his white Micra Car. Ankur Padiya told me that he wanted to wear a pagri and he told me that he wanted to purchase a turban as he had to go to attend some programme in the night. We went to a shop named Meeta Creations. He selected one yellow coloured turban and wore that turban. I tried to click his photograph twice or thrice but he did not let me click his photo. Then, he enquired from some aunt in the shop, who appeared to be owner of the shop, whether they had any new beard and mustaches. Thereafter the shop person provided him artificial beard and mustaches. Ankur Padiya then again put on the turban, beard and mustaches. I tried to click his photograph, but he did not allow me to do so. Ankur Padiya paid Rs. 350/- for the turban, beard and mustaches. Thereafter we returned back". 29. PW-32 Rajesh Singhal deposed that he was the owner of Meeta Creations, which was situated in Vigyan Nagar, Kota. He further deposed that "Ankur Padiya himself came to my shop for purchasing one Sikh turban, beard and mustaches. He demanded a white coloured turban which I sold to him for Rs.250/-. He also purchased beard and mustaches for Rs.100/-". 30. PW-32 Rajesh Singhal deposed that he was the owner of Meeta Creations, which was situated in Vigyan Nagar, Kota. He further deposed that "Ankur Padiya himself came to my shop for purchasing one Sikh turban, beard and mustaches. He demanded a white coloured turban which I sold to him for Rs.250/-. He also purchased beard and mustaches for Rs.100/-". 30. Deposition of witnesses PW-45 and PW-32 reveals that convict Ankur Padiya purchased for himself a Sikh turban, beard and mustaches on 26.09.2014, just a few days before the commission of the offence. The purpose of such purchase has not been explained by the convict in his statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is established that the purpose of purchasing the turban, beard and mustaches was to disguise himself so that he could not be identified as perpetrator of the crime. 31. There is evidence on record that a white Nissan Micra Car was seen at the place of incident at around the same time of the incident. It has also come in the evidence that the white Micra Car which was seen at the place of occurrence, was having tinted window glasses with black film. 32. PW-38 Tejpal has been examined in this regard. He has deposed that "about 1 months before 16.10.2014 Ankur Padiya came to our shop, Sajdhaj Car Decor, Gumanpura. He had come there to get black films pasted on the window glasses of his car. One boy working at our shop did the job. We charged Rs.600/-for black films and Rs.200/- for perfumes, thus total Rs.800/-were charged from Ankur Padiya. Our shop owner is Devendra and I used to work there as a salesman". The witness identified the convict Ankur Padiya in the court. Hence, it comes out that convict Ankur Padiya got pasted black films on window glasses of his car just some days before the commission of the offence. 33. Then there is evidence of Kush Kumar PW-37, who has stated that nI used to work in Tirupati Publishers and Distributers, a firm which is owned by Ankur Padiya. On 10.10.2014 at 11:00 AM I reached my office. I saw there that Ankur Padiya and one Rajaram were cleaning his Micra Car RJ20 CC 7100. Ankur Padiya and Rajaram were cleaning window glasses and were removing patches of sheet from the window glasses. On 10.10.2014 at 11:00 AM I reached my office. I saw there that Ankur Padiya and one Rajaram were cleaning his Micra Car RJ20 CC 7100. Ankur Padiya and Rajaram were cleaning window glasses and were removing patches of sheet from the window glasses. They were removing the black films pasted on the window glasses of Ankur Padiya's Micra Car. Ankur Padiya asked him to clean the car. We cleaned the glasses of the car within half-an-hour. After the work of cleaning was over, Ankur Padiya left the place". 34. PW-49 Rajaram deposed that "on 10.10.2014 I reached Bansal Classes at around 10:00 AM. Ankur Padiya came there at 10:15 AM. He was removing black films from his car. He also called me. I helped him in removing the black films on his car. The vehicle was white coloured Micra bearing number 7100. Thereafter one Sonu also came there. He also helped in this work. Thereafter we cleaned the car with petrol so as to remove the sticky material from the window glasses of the car. It took around two hours to remove the black films". Thus, the prosecution has placed on record the evidence which shows that convict Ankur Padiya got black films pasted on his car window glasses some days before the date of incident and thereafter on 10.10.2014, he removed the films from window glasses of the car. Prosecution witnesses PW-38 Tejpal, PW-37 Kush Kumar and PW-49 Rajaram, have proved this fact. 35. Investigating Officer Bhagwat Singh Hinger PW-106, has deposed that during search of Ankur Padiya's house, he inspected the Micra Car RJ20 CC 7100, which was parked in the parking slot of the house. After receiving key of the vehicle from convict Ankur Padiya's mother, he found out that there was sticky material on the window glasses of the car and it appeared that the sticky material was there on account of pasting and removing of the black films. The car was searched separately and a piece of black film was found in the car of size 12x13x4 cm, which was seized and marked as "G" and seizure memo Exhibit-P.66 was prepared. One yellow-red coloured, one red coloured and one white-blue coloured pieces of cloth were also found in the car, regarding which seizure memo Exhibit-P.67 was prepared. The car was searched separately and a piece of black film was found in the car of size 12x13x4 cm, which was seized and marked as "G" and seizure memo Exhibit-P.66 was prepared. One yellow-red coloured, one red coloured and one white-blue coloured pieces of cloth were also found in the car, regarding which seizure memo Exhibit-P.67 was prepared. Indicky of the car, two used scrubbers and two new scrubbers were found regarding which seizure memo Exhibit-P.68 was prepared. The Investigating Officer has also deposed that on the basis of Ankur Padiya's information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recoveries were made of the remains of burnt papers, film ashes etc. from G-182 Kuberline Tirupati Industries. Seizure memo Exhibit-P.75 was prepared. Similarly, one bottle of Chloroform was also recovered on the information of convict Ankur Padiya. Seizure memo of bottle of Chloroform is Exhibit-P.74. Mr. Sitaram and Mr. Kishan Gurjar were witnesses to seizure memo Exhibits-P.75 and 74. 36. PW-21 Sitaram has corroborated the deposition of PW-106 and has stated that house no. C-413 Home Enclave was searched in his presence. On 30.10.2014 one Chloroform bottle was recovered from Tirupati Industries, RIICO Rampur on the information of convict Ankur Padiya and seizure memo Exhibit-P.74 was prepared. Similarly on the same day, half burnt remains of glossy papers were recovered from the same place and seizure memo Exhibit-P.75 was prepared. Seizure memo Exhibit-P.75 has been prepared in respect of half burnt remains of black film and turban, beard and mustaches. Thus, the prosecution has led evidence to the effect that after the commission of the offence, the black film which was removed from the car windows and turban, beard and mustaches were burnt and half burnt remains were recovered at the instance of the accused Ankur Padiya. 37. PW-106 has also deposed that he had searched accused Ankur Padiya's Book Gallery situated in the building of Bansal Classes. At that time Ankur Padiya's cousin Sagar Agarwal was present there. The witnesses of the search were Ishwar Gambhir and Anil Gautam and in this search he recovered one Laptop in a black bag, Head Phone, Card Reader, Hard Disk, Pen-drive, three Dongles, two Mobiles, Stamp-seal etc. Two registers were also recovered along with Registration and Insurance papers of Micra Car RJ20 CC 7100. He further deposed that he checked the browser history in the Mozilla Firefox browser of the Laptop. Two registers were also recovered along with Registration and Insurance papers of Micra Car RJ20 CC 7100. He further deposed that he checked the browser history in the Mozilla Firefox browser of the Laptop. He found out search history about "where can I get Chloroform; College student arrested for kidnapping" etc. Laptop, Charger, Pen-drive, Black-pen, Laptop-bag etc. were seized and seizure memo Exhibit-P.58 was prepared. 38. PW-19 Ishwar Gambhir and PW-22 Anil Gautam have supported the search and seizure proceedings conducted in Book Gallery of accused Ankur Padiya on 14.10.2014 and they have deposed that one Black-bag, Laptop, Dongle, Mobile, Pendrive, Registration and Insurance-papers of Car RJ20 CC 7100 were seized. Seizure memo Exhibits-P.58 to P.62 were prepared. 39. One packet containing seized Laptop, Pendrive and External Hard Disc was sent to FSL Jaipur with Constable Ravindra vide forwarding letter Exhibit-P.38. FSL report Exhibit-P.381 was received, which reads as under :- "DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PACKET(S) RECEIVED 1- Packet- K :- It contained one grey coloured Laptop bearing description Lenova 3000 N200, Product Id: 769A29 etc having one hard disk bearing description FUJITSU, model MHW2120BH, Ser No.- NZ2BT7B295K3 etc., one blue coloured pen drive bearing description hp. 4GB, V165W and one black coloured . hard disk in multi coloured cardboard box bearing description SONY MODEL HD-E2, 2GB etc. The laptop, pendrive and external hard disc have been marked as exhibit K-1, K-2 and K-3 respectively in this laboratory.1 2- One black SATA hard disk bearing description WD, 500GB, S/N:WX81A84D43VR, MDL: WD5000LPVX80V0TT0 etc. has been supplied with forwarding letter of the Supdt. of Police Kota, which has been marked as exhibit-Y in this laboratory. RESULT OF EXAMINATION Examination of hard disk of Laptop exhibit-K-1 and Pendrive exhibit-K-2 have been carried out using the software Encase Version 7.09.03. 1- Internet access log details between 01-09- 2014 to 14-10-2014 have been extracted from the hard disc of laptop exhibit-K-1, which are given in the file namely Internet Access stored in the CD marked in this laboratory enclosed herewith. 2- The evidence of keyword searched on the internet between 01-09-2014 to 14-10-2014 has been detected in the hard disk of laptop exhibit-K-1. The details of searched keywords are given in each entry of the Annexure-I (Total Pages-31). 3- Mirror image of hard disc of laptop exhibit-K1 has been made in the hard disk exhibit-Y." 40. Annexure-1 was attached to the FSL report. The details of searched keywords are given in each entry of the Annexure-I (Total Pages-31). 3- Mirror image of hard disc of laptop exhibit-K1 has been made in the hard disk exhibit-Y." 40. Annexure-1 was attached to the FSL report. FSL report contained the keywords search history in for the months of September and October 2014. The relevant details from Annexure-1 (Exhibit-P.381) are extracted below :- SI. No. Record Last Accessed Searched Keyword8 1. 06/09/14 11:33:49 AM where can we get make up material? 2. 06/09/14 11:34:05 AM where can we get chloroform? 3. 06/09/14 11:34:18 AM where can we get make up material of sardar ji get up? 4. 06/09/14 11:34:24 AM where can we get make up material of sardar ji get up? 5. 06/09/14 11:34:49 AM where can we get chloroform in new delhi? 6. 06/09/14 11:35:01 AM Chloroform Dealers in Tilak Bazar Khari Baoli, Delhi, Chloroform, India 7. 06/09/14 11:39:29 AM what happen when we smell chloroform? 8. 06/09/14 11:44:54 AM Where can we get artificial beard in delhi? 9. 06/09/14 11:51:27 AM Artificial mustache Dealers in Mumbai, Artificial moustache Dealers, India 10. 08/09/14 04:07:55 PM casino in delhi 11. 08/09/14 04:25:56 PM gambling in delhi 12. 21/09/14 11:08:16 PM Chloroform in Delhi, Delhi, india -Manufacturer and Suppliers 13. 21/09/14 11:07:35 PM where can I get chloroform 14. 21/09/14 11:07:37 PM where can I get chloroform spray 15. 21/09/14 11:07:51 PM chloroform spray in Delhi 16. 21/09/14 11:08:07 PM where can I get chloroform in delhi 17. 21/09/14 11:08:16 PM Chloroform Dealers in Delhi, Chloroforms India 18. 21/09/14 11:08:16 PM Chloroform in Delhi, Delhi, India -Manufacturer and Suppliers 19. 21/09/14 11:08:23 PM Chloroform - Manufacturers, Suppliers and Exporters 20. 02/10/14 11:43:50 AM where can we get chemistry lab material in surat 21. 02/10/14 01:17:46 PM what is SQ chloroform 22. 02/10/14 01:18:42 PM 22466 SQ Chloroform 1 LTR Dealer in Pune, 22466 SQ Chloroform 1 LTR in Pune 23. 02/10/14 01:19:03 PM chloroform excelaR 24. 02/10/14 01:20:00 PM 12307 Chloroform ExcelaR 2.5 LTR Dealer in Pune, 12307 Chloroform ExcelaR 2.5 LTR in Pune 25. 04/10/14 06:31:12 PM how to change voice while talking on mobile 26. 04/10/14 06:31:33 PM 4 Ways to Change Your Voice - wikiHow 27. 04/10/14 06:35:22 PM How to Change Your Voice over the Phone: 5 Steps (with Pictures) 28. 02/10/14 01:20:00 PM 12307 Chloroform ExcelaR 2.5 LTR Dealer in Pune, 12307 Chloroform ExcelaR 2.5 LTR in Pune 25. 04/10/14 06:31:12 PM how to change voice while talking on mobile 26. 04/10/14 06:31:33 PM 4 Ways to Change Your Voice - wikiHow 27. 04/10/14 06:35:22 PM How to Change Your Voice over the Phone: 5 Steps (with Pictures) 28. 06/10/14 05:40:26 PM The Chloroform Habit as Described by One of its Victims 29. 06/10/14 05:16:47 PM Is it true that smelling chloroform makes a person faint? 30. 06/10/14 05:18:50 PM How to make a person pass out/ faint?? 31. 06/10/14 05:22:08 PM need to know exact amount of time how long we get fainted after inhaling chloroform? 32. 06/10/14 05:22:45 PM Is it true that smelling chloroform makes a person faint? 33. 06/10/14 05:40:26 PM The Chloroform Habit as Described by One of Its Victims 34. 06/10/14 05:49:48 PM rich persons in kota - Google Search 35. 06/10/14 05:50:09 PM rich Men Rajasthan 36. 06/10/14 05:50:20 PM kota directory - Google Search 37. 07/10/14 12:26:40 PM A406 talwandi - Google Search 38. 07/10/14 12:26:47 PM A406 talwandi kota - Google Search 39. 07/10/14 12:27:23 PM talwandi kota directory - Google Search 41. The aforesaid evidence submitted on behalf of the prosecution establishes that some days before the commission of the offence, convict Ankur Padiya used his internet to browse the topics which could help him in the commission of the offence. Thus, the prosecution has led evidence that convict Ankur Padiya was systemically getting prepared for the commission of the offence and all required information was collected. 42. As per the case of prosecution, convicts Ankur Padiya and Anoop Padiya were arrested on 27.10.2014 in Lucknow by Sub-Inspector Jitendra Singh PW-56. The Investigating Officer has further deposed that "whatever recoveries from the convicts at the time of their arrest were made, the items were delivered by Sub-Inspector Jitendra Singh to me and I deposited those items in the Malkhana. One letter was recovered from possession of accused Ankur Padiya at the time of his arrest, which was supposed to be in his handwriting". 43. PW-56 Jitendra Singh has deposed that on 27.10.2014 he arrested the accused Ankur Padiya and Anoop Padiya. One letter was recovered from possession of accused Ankur Padiya at the time of his arrest, which was supposed to be in his handwriting". 43. PW-56 Jitendra Singh has deposed that on 27.10.2014 he arrested the accused Ankur Padiya and Anoop Padiya. At that time one Samsung Mobile, one Nokia Mobile, Voter ID of Sushant Rajganda, two written papers of Classmate Company purportedly signed by Ankur Padiya, were recovered from his possession. Accused Ankur Padiya had written about himself and about Rudraksh on those papers. Those papers were seized. 44. Search and arrest memos of accused Ankur Padiya, Exhibit-P.90 was prepared. The arrest was made in the presence of witnesses Pratap Singh PW-46 and Bharat Sharma PW-55. 45. Written papers, purportedly written in the handwriting of accused Ankur Padiya, were recovered from his possession and were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-P.92.PW-46 Pratap Singh and PW-55 Bharat Sharma have proved the arrest and seizure memos, Exhibits-P.90 and P.92. 46. Specimen handwriting of accused Ankur Padiya was taken by PW-107 Abhishek Kodap (Judicial Magistrate). He has stated that on 07.01.2015, while posted as Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.1 (South), Kota, he got recorded the specimen handwriting of accused Ankur Padiya in slow, medium and fast speed, following all due procedure. The specimen handwriting has been marked as Exhibit-P.491 (nine pages). Order-sheet of the court has been marked as Exhibit-P.492. Similarly, PW-108 Samrath Lal Meena, Judicial Magistrate, was also examined during the prosecution evidence for the purpose of proving that specimen handwriting of convict Ankur Padiya was taken in the supervision of PW-108. 47. The pages recovered from the possession of accused Ankur Padiya at the time of his arrest on 27.10.2014, supposedly containing the writing of accused Ankur Padiya were marked as Exhibits-P.108 and 109. Exhibit-P.108 reads as under :- "By the time you people will get this note, my dead body must had been found in CHAMBAL RIVER. I'm extremely sorry for committing suicide but I'm not finding any other way to get out from this unwanted forceful situation on me. First of all I would like to tell you that I was used as a puppet in this whole case. I can't even think of doing such act. I can never even slap kids. But yes, I got scared when my car was under suspect. First of all I would like to tell you that I was used as a puppet in this whole case. I can't even think of doing such act. I can never even slap kids. But yes, I got scared when my car was under suspect. Because I use to go there for visiting temple & to meet one person of DADA Bookie. Earlier I thought to tell everything to police, but these bookies scared me. I started running from the situation. I thought that if I stay out then I can prove my innocence. But now police had poured the whole case on me. These bookies made my life like hell. They involved me in batting. One person introduced me with DADA & LALA Bookie. They gave me few mobiles, SIM cards and few other things which involve chloroform in them. They shown me the boy & asked me to bring him from the park. After that they took the boy from me at Jawahar Nagar Road. Then they asked me to keep all mobiles in some safe place except two sets. They promised me that they will give me my flat papers back & will forgive all my amount due by them. One thing I noticed that when they took boy from me then at that time two big bookies were also sitting in his car. They asked me to live normally. I don't know where they took that kid & what they did with him. They were guiding me to go all places in Kota. I'm trying to prove my innocence since last few days, but all in vain. I can't live with all these charges on me. Other than this I don't have any other involvement in this whole case. But these people put everything on me & now I understood that these bookies were never helping me. Infact now they are asking me to surrender and saying that they will help me in court case. But now I don't believe them and I'm running from this place, where they hide me & committing suicide. I request all people to stay away from BOOKIES. I love my family & friends very much. Message for my family, friends & police :- 1. Mummy Ji & Papa Ji :- Please forgive me & sorry that I will not be there to serve you for rest of the life. 2. I request all people to stay away from BOOKIES. I love my family & friends very much. Message for my family, friends & police :- 1. Mummy Ji & Papa Ji :- Please forgive me & sorry that I will not be there to serve you for rest of the life. 2. Neha - I love you & will do this for next coming lives also. I want that God almighty give me, you as my wife for next 7 lives. I love you. Will meet soon..... in next birth. TAKE CARE. 3. BOTH BROTHERS & BHABHIS: SORRY for my life, but I request to please take care of family. 4. RAASIKA, ROOPKARSH & HETAL : HUG ME Kids (emoji with tears) Feeling like crying. 5. Friends :- Thanks for all the support & confidence in me. Highly thankful to you. 6. Police - If you people have asked me in some polite way then I might had told you about my presence over there. But you scared me. Q-8 In the end, I also feel SORRY about that little boy Rudraksh & his family. But please punish these criminals from my side also. God will also punish them & take our Revenge. I request all people & police that please don't charge or highlight anyone before getting sure. I'm loosing my life uselessly. SORRY Everyone. Message to all youngsters & to all those people who are involved in betting. Please stay away with these people. sd/- (1) DAINK BHASKAR, KOTA, RAJASTHAN (2) RAJASTHA PATRIKA, KOTA RAJASTHAN (3) S.K. PADIA, C-413, OM ENCLAVE, KOTA, RAJASTHAN (4) ANANTPURA POLICE STATION, KOTA THANK YOU" Exhibit-P. 109 reads as under: -" 1) PREPARE -------------You 2) SEARCHING Room & stay Silently- Me- 3) WANT to Start WORKING with long aim/ ONLY WORK 4) EARN So much Money in 5 years 5) facial Surgery & settle in france 6) Getting married to some girl again with new identity & face" 48. This disputed writing and specimen handwriting of convict Ankur Padiya were sent to the FSL for comparison. The FSL report has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.388, which reads as under :- "DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES DISPUTED : Q6 TO Q11 Blue enclosed writings stamped and marked in blue ball pen on ruled papers. ------------03 sheets & Its 03 Photostat copies. STANDARD A96 to A104 Specimen writings purported to be of Sh. The FSL report has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.388, which reads as under :- "DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES DISPUTED : Q6 TO Q11 Blue enclosed writings stamped and marked in blue ball pen on ruled papers. ------------03 sheets & Its 03 Photostat copies. STANDARD A96 to A104 Specimen writings purported to be of Sh. Ankur Padia --------- 09Sheets A91 to A95 Admitted writings purported to be of Sh. Ankur Padia --------- 01 volume PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION Determination of authorship RESULT OF EXAMINATION As a result of very careful and thorough scientific examination of the documents referred to overleaf with the help of the scientific aids available in the division the following conclusion has been arrived at : The disputed writings marked as Q6 to Q11 and standard writings marked as A91 to A104 have been written by one and the same person. GROUNDS The disputed and standard writings are written freely and agree with each other in general writing characteristics such as line quality, movement, point load, skill, alignment, spacing, slant, speed, relative size, proportion of letter etc; with natural variation and do not show sign of imitation. Standard writings also show consistency on interse examination. The disputed and standard writings also agree with each other in individual writing characteristics. Some of significant points of SIMilarities are mentioned below:- 01. SI Milar execution of letter B, nature of start, curved body movement and placement on staff. 02. SIMilar manner of letter g, nature of start with eyelet formation, curved body movement and its finish. 03. S IMilar habit of letter t nature of start, retrace formation, body placement and its crossbar. 04. SI Milar execution of letter N nature of start, curved/angular body movement and its finish. 05. SI Milar manner of letter k nature of start, curved/angular body movement and body placement with respect to staff. 06. SI Milar habit of letter T, nature of vertical stroke formation and placement of top bar. 07. SIMilar manner of letter h nature of curved body movement and placement of staff. 08. SI Milar execution of letter m nature of start, formation and placement of feet & shoulders. 09. SI Milar manner of letter a nature of body oval shape, body placement and its finish. 10. SIMilar nature of movement in formation of letters I, A, S, R, f, e, r, b, d, y, etc. 11. No material divergence could be detected. SI Milar execution of letter m nature of start, formation and placement of feet & shoulders. 09. SI Milar manner of letter a nature of body oval shape, body placement and its finish. 10. SIMilar nature of movement in formation of letters I, A, S, R, f, e, r, b, d, y, etc. 11. No material divergence could be detected. Cumulative consideration of above said points of SI Milarities are sufficient and significant to arrive at the above said conclusion. These points of SI Milarities are not due to accidental coincidence. Cumulative consideration of above said points of Similarities are sufficient and significant to arrive at the above said conclusion. These points of SIMilarities are not due to accidental coincidence." 49. Thus, the handwritten papers recovered from the convict Ankur Padiya at the time of his arrest, also form a vital piece of evidence to establish involvement of the convict Ankur Padiya in the commission of the crime. 50. The prosecution has led evidence to the point that convict Ankur Padiya purchased nine SIMs from Karanjeet Singh in September 2014 without using any ID (identity proof). Out of these SIMs, one bearing no. 9555892674 was used for making calls to Kota on landline no. 2360837 and mobile no. 9414188018. This SIM was also used to make call to Surat on mobile no. 9909000166. Mobile no. 9414188018 and landline no. 0744-2360837 were registered in the user name of Sanjeev Verma, who was the owner of Sudarshan Chemicals, Kota. Mobile no. 9909000166 was registered in user name of Rohit Gajera of BVM Scientific Industries, Krishna Estate, Surat. 51. PW-24 Sanjeev Kumar Verma deposed that I own a shop in the name of Sudarshan Chemicals and I own one factory in the name of Sudarhsan Chemicals also. On 02.10.2014, I had gone to Delhi when I received one call on my mobile from some person. He demanded my E-mail address which I sent to him. 52. The person who had made the call, identified himself as the owner of KD Enterprises, Jhalawar. He made demand of several items from my factory. That person also sent a mail on my computer. The police team took screenshots of the mail from my computer which are exhibited as Exhibits-P.25 to P. 33 (total 9)". 53. Witness PW-42 Rohit stated that "on 02.10.2014, I received a call on my mobile no. 9909000166. He made demand of several items from my factory. That person also sent a mail on my computer. The police team took screenshots of the mail from my computer which are exhibited as Exhibits-P.25 to P. 33 (total 9)". 53. Witness PW-42 Rohit stated that "on 02.10.2014, I received a call on my mobile no. 9909000166. That person identified himself as the proprietor of KD Enterprises firm". The witness, Rohit identified the accused as the person who had gone to his firm to procure chloroform. One bottle of 100 ml chloroform and 100 ml bottle of glycerin were delivered to him as samples. Police took screenshots of the mail which have been exhibited as P.81 to P.86. 54. PW-43 Shailesh Patel testified that "on 03.10.2014, convict Ankur Padiya visited our office in Surat and made a request to meet Rohit, who was at that time in the factory". Then he (PW-43) escorted him to their factory where sample chloroform bottle of 100 ml was taken by Ankur Padiya. 55. As per statement of the Investigating Officer, PW-106 Bhagwat Singh, call details of these phone numbers disclosed that these calls were made from mobile no. 9555892674 which was one of the SIMs purchased by Ankur Padiya from Karanjeet in the month of September 2014. The person who identified himself as the proprietor of KD Enterprises Jhalawar, had sent E-mail from E-mail address kamaldeep@gmail.com to Sudarshan Chemicals and BVM Scientific Company, Surat. On enquiry, no firm in the name of KD Enterprises, Jhalawar was found. It transpired that no firm in the name of KD Enterprises existed. Letter was sent to Google to make enquiry about the E-mails which were sent from E-mail address kamaldeep@gmail.com and in reply from Google, it was stated that these were two IP Addresses, one of MTS Company (14.97.17.49) and the other of TATA Company (180.215.131.237). The letter received from Google was exhibited as Exhibit-P.196. On further enquiry made from the respective service providers, it was found that user of said MTS IP Address was convict Ankur Padiya and user of TATA IP address was one Jatin Bajoriya of Surat. PW-105 Shyam Pratap Singh deposed that he was Nodal Officer of MTS Company from October 2010 to September 2015. On further enquiry made from the respective service providers, it was found that user of said MTS IP Address was convict Ankur Padiya and user of TATA IP address was one Jatin Bajoriya of Surat. PW-105 Shyam Pratap Singh deposed that he was Nodal Officer of MTS Company from October 2010 to September 2015. He further stated that Superintendent of Police, Kota City, vide letter dated 10.12.2014, enquired about the subscriber of IP Address 180.215.131.237 and as per Exhibit-P.191, the subscriber of this IP Address was Ankur Padiya, Kota. Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was exhibited as P. 187. 56. PW-80 Sandeep Kumar Sain deposed that in response to letter from the Superintendent of Police, Kota City (Exhibit-P. 132) the subscriber of IP Address 14.97.17.49 was informed to be Jatin Bajotiya of Surat (Exhibit-P.133). Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been marked as Ex.P-134. Thus, the subscriber of IP Address of MTS Company was convict Ankur Padiya, while subscriber of the IP Address of TATA Company was identified as Jatin Bajoriya of Surat. Jatin Bajoriya has been examined as PW-93. He deposed that Ankur Padiya was related to him through his brother's wife. Ankur Padiya visited his house in Surat on 03.10.2014. Ankur Padiya stayed at his house and during his stay, he used his computer (TATA internet). He also deposed that his computer was not password protected. Thus, Jatin Bajoriya testified that his internet was used on his computer by convict Ankur Padiya on the said date. 57. PW-74 Priyank Bajoriya also supported the deposition of Jatin Bajoriya. 58. PW-82 Naresh Kumar deposed that on 01.11.2014, he was deputed to find out the existence of KD Enterprises firm. On enquiry he came to the conclusion that no firm in the name of KD Enterprises was existing in Jhalawar. In this regard, Exhibits-P. 141 and P. 142 have been produced in evidence. Thus, the deposition of PW-82 proves that KD Enterprises firm was not in existence and convict Ankur Padiya created fake mail ID and fake firm in the name of KD Enterprises just to procure Chloroform to facilitate the commission of the crime. 59. In this regard, Exhibits-P. 141 and P. 142 have been produced in evidence. Thus, the deposition of PW-82 proves that KD Enterprises firm was not in existence and convict Ankur Padiya created fake mail ID and fake firm in the name of KD Enterprises just to procure Chloroform to facilitate the commission of the crime. 59. Thus, the prosecution has, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, established that fake E-mail ID in the name of kamaldeep@gmail.com was created by convict Ankur Padiya and this E-mail ID was used to send mail to Sudarshan Chemicals and BVM Scientific Company in attempt to procure chloroform from these firms. It has also come in evidence that he (Ankur Padiya) procured one 100 ml bottle of chloroform from BVM Scientific Company of Surat. 60. The prosecution has also placed on record oral and documentary evidence to prove that the convict Ankur Padiya, unauthorisedly used ID Card of PW-97 Sushant Kumar Rajganda. PW-97 Sushant Kumar deposed that he was permanent resident of Orissa. On 16.10.2014 he was travelling from Balsadh to Bhubaneswar by train no. 22909. In the passenger coach of the train, he met with one unknown passenger and thereafter they entered into conversation. He deposed that "I lost my ID during that journey. About 1 or two months later, I got a call from Kota police, who enquired about my ID. I searched for my ID but I did not find it. Then Kota police informed me that they had recovered my ID from Ankur Padiya". PW-97 Sushant Kumar identified the convict Ankur Padiya as the person who had met him in the train. Original ID has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.14. 61. Thus it is revealed that convict Ankur Padiya, somehow got possession of the ID of Sushant Kumar Rajganda while both were travelling in the same train. 62. PW-46 Pratap Singh and PW-56 Jitendra Singh have deposed that convict Ankur Padiya had created two mail IDs, one in the name of Sushant Kumar Rajganda and another in the name of Vikram Oberoi and several mails were sent using these fake mail IDs. PW-46 Pratap Singh deposed that he was one of the members of the investigating team which arrested the convict Ankur Padiya and Anoop Padiya. Ankur Padiya was arrested on 27.10.2014 from Lucknow. PW-46 Pratap Singh deposed that he was one of the members of the investigating team which arrested the convict Ankur Padiya and Anoop Padiya. Ankur Padiya was arrested on 27.10.2014 from Lucknow. At the time of his arrest, one Voter ID of Sushant Kumar Rajganda was recovered from the possession of convict Ankur Padiya. Exhibit-P.90, arrest and search memo was prepared. "On 09.11.2014 between 05:30 and 06:40 PM we accessed five mail accounts of Ankur Padiya, out of which one mail ID was in the name of Sushant Kumar Rajganda and another mail ID was in the name of Vikram Oberoi. In the mail of Sushant Kumar Rajganda, convict Ankur Padiya had attached one resume in the name of Sushant Rajganda and his own photo (Ankur Padiya's) was affixed to the resume. He had sent one mail to Anoop Padiya from this mail ID and had requested him to prepare forged documents. Screenshots were taken of these mails which have been exhibited as Exhibits-P.96, P.97, P.98. P.99, P.100 and P.101. Resume in the name of Sushant Rajganda has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.95. Memo of the proceedings was prepared as Exhibit-P.94. 63. PW-56 Jitendra Singh has also supported the testimony of PW-46 Pratap Singh. I.O. PW-106 has also corroborated the versions of PW-46 and PW-56. 64. Thus, the prosecution has established that convict Ankur Padiya had unauthorisedly used the ID of Sushant Kumar Rajganda and created fake mail IDs in the name of Sushant Kumar Rajganda and Vikram Oberoi and sent mails to convey messages to his own brother, convict Anoop Padiya. These mails were sent to avoid the clutches of law. 65. Exhibit-P.97 was sent in the name of Sushant Kumar Rajganda using mail ID susanta.Rajganda@gmail.com which reads thus :- "Dear Sir, Kindly save my new ID and mobile number. And give me rates of some latest mobile models. Kindly check if there is any job for me there Kindly check the attachment. Thanks & Regards. Susanta Kumar Rajganda 07064763145" Exhibit-P.98 mail was sent by convict Ankur Padiya to himself so that it can be accessed by his own brother, convict Anoop Padiya, which reads thus :- "hi, I made my aim today. Which i as follows: 1- Prepare documents, which will be done by you. 2. Take a room and stay silently for a month or two as a student. 3. Which i as follows: 1- Prepare documents, which will be done by you. 2. Take a room and stay silently for a month or two as a student. 3. Then will start working with long aim for next 5 years. ONLY WORK 4. Earn so much money by honest working that i can do my facial transplant. 5. Getting married to some girl after that with new identity and everything abroad. I know its very difficult to do all this but i think when a person like you and me will do together then we can do it anyhow. But till my documents get prepared please keep me in your house only for two days, my mouth ulsers are very badly paining then I will go to my next destination as a student. Plz Plz Plz help me..... We both together can do things in a right way and correct. please......" Exhibit-P.99 mail was sent by convict Ankur Padiya to himself, which reads thus :- "Dear Vickram. Now i had changed my mind to go that place, just try to prepare my id and certificate asap. i will stay in delhi now for one month as an IAS aspirant, will give you the details later. Just take care and be updated." Exhibit-P. 100 mail was sent by convict Ankur Padiya to himself, which reads thus :- "Kindly give me your fresh mobile number asap. i will call it only from new cell and new number, take care" Exhibit-P. 101 mail was sent by convict Ankur Padiya to himself, reads thus :- "1. kindly tell me how much time will you take in making my papers? according to me travelling is not a good idea. 2. after getting proper papers, i can sit at one place, take a room and prepare for an examination for some time. 3. Now what are the conditions there? still its coming in highlight? 4. At the time of emergency can u give me number of sanjay? 5. I'm still waiting for your new number? 6. I'm postponing that idea of letter right now. As it is not safe to do anything in hurry. And i think things are getting normal here. 7. I'm waiting for the papers, then only i will leave from here." 66. 5. I'm still waiting for your new number? 6. I'm postponing that idea of letter right now. As it is not safe to do anything in hurry. And i think things are getting normal here. 7. I'm waiting for the papers, then only i will leave from here." 66. As per prosecution evidence, the ID of Sushant Kumar Rajganda was also used by convict Ankur Padiya for the purpose of his stay in a Hotel at Kanpur. PW-75 Shiv Hari Shukla deposed that he was working as Manager in Hotel Shree Narayan residency, Kanpur. He deposed that non 24.10.2014 at 11:30 PM, one person had come there to stay in our Hotel. He had shown ID in the name of Sushant Kumar Rajganda and stayed in room no. 107 of our Hotel. We made entry in the register on the basis of ID. ID has been exhibited as Article 14". The witness, Shiv Hari Shukla identified the convict Ankur Padiya as the person who had stayed in the Hotel in the name of Sushant Kumar Rajganda. PW-106 I.O. Bhagwat Singh deposed that true copy of register of Shree Narayan residency Hotel of Kanpur was submitted to me by Sub-Inspector Jitendra Singh which has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.282. The entry in the name of Sushant Kumar Rajganda has been made at serial no. 781 in the register. Similarly, convict Ankur Padiya had stayed in Hotel My Choice using ID of Sushant Kumar Rajganda. The copy of register has been placed on record as Exhibit-P.283 and entry has been made at serial no. 324 of the register. 67. Thus, it also comes out that convict Ankur Padiya stayed in different hotels using ID of Sushant Kumar Rajganda to conceal his movements and to avoid his arrest. 68. Prosecution has also led evidence on the point of identity of the Car, which was used for kidnapping Rudraksh, based on CCTV footage, which were recovered from the CCTV cameras installed in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. In this regard, PW-16 Pramod Avasthi has been examined, who deposed that he resided in house No. 323-A Talwandi, Kota. He further deposed that "I have got installed CCTV cameras outside my house, which are directed towards both the roads. The police took CCTV footage of 09.10.2014. This footage was received by the police on 11.10.2014. In this regard, PW-16 Pramod Avasthi has been examined, who deposed that he resided in house No. 323-A Talwandi, Kota. He further deposed that "I have got installed CCTV cameras outside my house, which are directed towards both the roads. The police took CCTV footage of 09.10.2014. This footage was received by the police on 11.10.2014. I myself saw the footage in which one Micra Car was seen at around 6:00 in the evening. Recording was made from DVR which was seized and Exhibit-P.29 was prepared". 69. PW-66 Jalaj Vyas was also examined. He stated that on 16.10.2014, CCTV footage from CCTV cameras installed at my house, 324-A Talwandi, Kota were handed over to police. Police prepared a CD. Seizure memo Exhibit-P.130 was prepared. I saw the footage. One white Micra Car was visible in the footage but the number of the car and driver of the car were not visible". 70. PW-6 Ravindra testified that one digital video recorder and one CD, received from Pramod Avasthi, were seized and Exhibit-P.29 was prepared. Similarly, one CD received from Jalaj Vyas, was seized (Exhibit-P.30). Khajan Singh was also a witnesse to these proceedings. 71. PW-18 Khajan Singh has also corroborated the testimonies of other witnesses PW-6 Ravindra, PW-16 Pramod Avasthi, PW-66 Jalaj Vyas. Investigating Officer PW-106 Bhagwat Singh has stated that on 09.11.2014, Amreesh Kumar Tiwari submitted one CD of CCTV footage of the camera installed at Bansal Classes. In the CCTV footage, one Micra Car was seen entering the premises of Bansal Classes on 10.10.2014. The car had tinted window glasses with black films and it was entering the premises of Bansal Classes but while it was coming out of the premises, it had no black film on its window glasses. Seizure memo Exhibit-P.33 was prepared in the presence of witnesses Ravindra and Khajan Singh, PW-6 and PW-18 respectively. Both these witnesses have supported the testimony of PW-106 (Investigating Officer). It was further deposed that the DVR received from Pramod Avasthi on 11.10.2014 was sent to FSL, Gandhi Nagar to ascertain the number of Micra Nissan Car on the basis of CCTV footage. FSL report Exhibit-P.226 was received, which reads thus :- Parcel-l: One sealed cloth baggie pack parcel contained one DVR with USB Mouse and Power adapter, which is marked as Exh-1 in the division. The details of the DVR Exh-1 are given below. Sr. FSL report Exhibit-P.226 was received, which reads thus :- Parcel-l: One sealed cloth baggie pack parcel contained one DVR with USB Mouse and Power adapter, which is marked as Exh-1 in the division. The details of the DVR Exh-1 are given below. Sr. No. DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM MAKE & MODEL STAMPED & MARKED AS 1 DVR Make: alhua Model: DHHCVR5108H S/N: TZA3MZ105W00475 Exh-1 Examinations: 1. The DVR Exh-1 was forensically analyzed. 2. The Video footages present in the DVR Exh-1 for the duration mentioned in the police forwarding note were captured and analyzed using Video Enhancement System. The details of the captured Video footages are as follows: Sr. No. Camera Date & Time as per the time of DVR 1 CAM 1 2014-10-09 17:57:10 to 17:57:15 2 CAM 4 2014-10-09 17:56:00 to 17:57:15 Characters / Digits Position 1st 2 nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Most likely Characters /Digits R J Not legi ble 0 C C Not legib le 1 0 0 72. The prosecution has placed on record the evidence relating to the ransom call made on 09.10.2014. The mobile with IMEI number, which was used to make the ransom call, was recovered during the investigation of the case. PW-9 SanjaySharma is the prime witness in this regard. He had testified that on 09.10.2014 he was conductor of bus no. MP14 R 0621. The bus reached Kota at 08:45 PM. It was parked near C.B Garden. He further deposed that he found one mobile lying on the ground without any battery, SIM or cover. The cover was lying at a distance of seven to eight steps. Battery was lying in water in a nearby stream which was taken out by cleaner Madhav. Khallasi of the bus was Madhav Bheel. The witness deposed that non 11.10.2014, I was called by Jawahar Nagar police, Kota and police recovered the said mobile from me. Seizure memo Exhibit-P.20 was prepared. SIM was also seized vide Exhibit-P.21". PW-10 Madhav has also supported the version of PW-9 Sanjay Sharma. 73. PW-11 Jagdish has also made similar statement. He further stated that site plans Exhibits-P.22 and P.23 were prepared. 74. Investigating Officer, PW-106 Bhagwat Singh further deposed that on 11.10.2014 at 05:45 PM, Sanjay Sharma brought one mobile (Samsung) with IMEI No. 357065051063636, which was seized. This was the same mobile from which (no. 73. PW-11 Jagdish has also made similar statement. He further stated that site plans Exhibits-P.22 and P.23 were prepared. 74. Investigating Officer, PW-106 Bhagwat Singh further deposed that on 11.10.2014 at 05:45 PM, Sanjay Sharma brought one mobile (Samsung) with IMEI No. 357065051063636, which was seized. This was the same mobile from which (no. 8882827457) call was made on the landline number of complainant, 0744-2426222 on 09.10.2014. The IMEI No. 357065051063630, which was revealed in the CDR 8882827457 was kept on tracing and on 11.10.2014 it was found that Sanjay Sharma was using this mobile with another SIM. Hence, this mobile was seized. It was further found out that convict Karanjeet had sold nine SIMs on 23.09.2014 for Rs. 1100/-. The person who bought the SIMs, identified himself from Kota. During investigation, the photo of convict Ankur Padiya was shown to Karanjeet, who identified him as the person who had bought eight SIMs. Call details received from service providers pointed its use by convict Ankur Padiya. Call details in this regard, are Exhibit-P.473. The relevant entries read as under :- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IMEI USED ..N_MDN CALLG PARTY NO CALLED PARTY NO START DATE CALL TIME BILL DURAT ION FIRST_CELL_ ID 8882827457 8882827457 7442426222 09-Oct-14 19:32:47 356 919024000100 -1945-1 8882827457 8882827457 7442426222 09-Oct-14 19:32:47 356 919024000100 -1945-1 8882827457 8882827457 7442426222 09-Oct-14 19:32:47 356 919024000100 -1945-1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LAST_CE LL_ID CALL DURATIO N ESN_or_I MEI_NO MIN_or_ IMSI_NO TYPE CONNE CTION SMS CENTRE ROAMIN G DETAILS BTS_ADDRESS 91902400 0100- 1945-1 OUT_CALL 35706505 1063630 40505004 2606635 PLOT NO 38 SAMRIDHI NAGAR 2 MANPURA TEHSIL LADPURA KOTA 91902400 0100- 1945-1 OUT_CALL 35706505 1063630 40505004 2606635 PLOT NO 38 SAMRIDHI NAGAR 2 MANPURA TEHSIL LADPURA KOTA 91902400 0100- 1945-1 OUT_CALL 35706505 1063630 40505004 2606635 PLOT NO 38 SAMRIDHI NAGAR 2 MANPURA TEHSIL LADPURA KOTA 75. It has been argued on behalf of appellants that as per prosecution case, SIM no. 8882827457 was used in mobile instrument IMEI No. 357065051063636, from which call was made on 09.10.2014 regarding demand of ransom. When the IMEI number was put on tracing, then it was found that Sanjay Sharma was using this mobile instrument with his SIM and the mobile instrument was recovered from the possession of Sanjay Sharma. The recovery memo of mobile instrument shows IMEIno. 357065051063636. When the IMEI number was put on tracing, then it was found that Sanjay Sharma was using this mobile instrument with his SIM and the mobile instrument was recovered from the possession of Sanjay Sharma. The recovery memo of mobile instrument shows IMEIno. 357065051063636. Therefore, the recovered instrument cannot be linked with mobile instrument bearing IMEI no. 357065051063630 and PW-106 Bhagwat Singh Hinger, Investigating Officer has deposed falsely. Prosecution has argued that from Exhibit-P.318 it is clear that SIM no. 8882827457 was used in mobile instrument IMEI no. 357065051063630 on 09.10.2014. From Exhibit-P.522 it is clear that this SIM no. 8882827457 was earlier used on 23.09.2014 in the same mobile instrument IMEI no. 357065051063630. As regards difference in the last digit of IMEI number, PW-106 Bhagwat Singh has clarified this position during his cross-examination and he has stated that whenever IMEI number is enquired from the service provider, then the last digit invariably comes in zero, and it has further been argued that there is a procedure to find out last 15 check digit numbers in three steps. The IMEI number of mobile instrument mentioned in Ex-P.318 is 357065051063630. The actual last digit number (check digit) was not transmitted and it was shown as zero. The last digit number (check digit) can be found out using the standard procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants have not been able to counter this argument made on behalf of the prosecution. Hence, in view of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it is revealed that the SIM from which the ransom call was made on 09.10.2014, was used by the convict Ankur Padiya. Thus, the call details and recovery of the mobile instrument from Sanjay Sharma, connect Ankur Padiya to the offence. 76. The prosecution has also led evidence to prove the motive of convicts Ankur Padiya and Anoop Padiya to commit the offence. 77. It is the case of prosecution that the convict Ankur Padiya was under heavy debts. He had taken huge loans from different persons. Thus, he was in a condition of severe financial strain and was in urgent need of huge amount of money. In this regard, PW-67 Vijayraman Sharma deposed that Ankur Padiya had taken loan twice of 2.5 lakh rupees each before two months of the incident. He had taken huge loans from different persons. Thus, he was in a condition of severe financial strain and was in urgent need of huge amount of money. In this regard, PW-67 Vijayraman Sharma deposed that Ankur Padiya had taken loan twice of 2.5 lakh rupees each before two months of the incident. PW-68 Nikhil Sharma deposed that Ankur Padiya had taken 10 lakh rupees from him in exchange for two cheques for guarantee. PW-69 Ankit Kumar Avasthi has deposed that he received a WhatsApp message of Ankur Padiya on 12.10.2014 that there was a plot costing 40 lakh rupees in Bajrang Nagar which they could purchase and sell for 41 lakh rupees. PW-77 Mahendra Kumar deposed that Ankur Padiya was involved in gambling in cricket. PW-79 Suresh Kumar Jain has admitted in his deposition that he had given 14 lakh rupees to Ankur Padiya, one month before the date of incident. PW-94 Hanuman Prasad Meena has deposed about the bank loans which were advanced to the convict Ankur Padiya. PW-44 Gopal Chaturvedi has also been examined on the point that Ankur Padiya was involved in suspicious transactions and deals to earn quick money. Thus the prosecution has been successful in establishing the motive of the convicts for the commission of the offence. 78. Apart from the evidence discussed above, the prosecution has led additional evidence in relation to convict Anoop Padiya. Prosecution has led oral and documentary evidence to prove that convict Anoop was living in Lucknow in the name of Santosh Singh S/o Kedar Singh. Fake ID and Ration Card were recovered from the possession of convict Anoop. He had also created fake ID in the name of one Santosh Singh S/o Kedar Singh. Five mobiles were used by convict Anoop, out of which three mobiles were recovered at the time of his arrest. This evidence proves that convict Anoop for the purposes of facilitating the crime and in furtherance of the common object of conspiracy hatched by convict Ankur Padiya and himself, created fake mail IDs, fake IDs and procured SIMs which were not issued in him name and used those SIMs for the purposes of conversation with Ankur Padiya unauthorisedly in prosecution of the common object of the conspiracy to commit the crime. 79. PW-56 Jitendra Singh deposed that arrest memo of convict Anoop Padiya has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.91. 79. PW-56 Jitendra Singh deposed that arrest memo of convict Anoop Padiya has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.91. PW-46 Pratap Singh and PW-55 Bharat Sharma have proved Exhibit-P.91. At the time of arrest, Rs.6,550/- cash, one watch, one gold bracelet, two gold rings and three mobiles were recovered from the possession of convict Anoop Padiya. PW-56 Jitendra Singh deposed that on 19.11.2014, search of the house of Anoop Padiya in Lucknow was conducted on the information of convict Anoop. Exhibit-P. 107 was prepared of search proceedings of House No. 3/27 Viramkhand, Police Station Gomati Nagar, U.P. In one part of this house convict Anoop Padiya resided. On search of the house, one file relating to Land Deal in Udaipur, Lease-Deed, Ration Card in the name of Santosh Singh, photocopy of Sushant Kumar Rajganda's PAN Card, Membership Cards, E-ticket, Rs. 11,401/-, eight dongles and fifteen mobiles of different companies, oneLaptop of Sony Company, were recovered. Copy of Ration Card has been exhibited as Exhibit-P.477, which was issued in the name of Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Kedar Singh. Name of family members were entered as Kedar Singh, Sushma Singh, Sanjay and Ramesh. Photo of convict Anoop was affixed on it. Similarly, Exhibit-P.476, copy of PAN Card of Sushant Rajganda was also recovered from this house. Thus, fake Ration Card and fake PAN Card were recovered from the possession of convict Anoop Padiya. Convict Anoop Padiya had also created fake ID in the name of Sushant Rajganda and Vikram Oberoi and fake ID in the name of Santosh Singh, password of which was also Santoshsinghl2345. Thus, fake mail IDs were created for the purposes of exchanging information between himself and convict Ankur Padiya (for the purpose of committing crime and thereafter, for the purpose of misleading the investigation team). 80. Mobile no. 7706988562 which was recovered from the possession of Anoop was registered in the name of Mohit, as per Customer Application Form Exhibit-P.352. Mobile no. 7275575575 recovered from him was registered in the name of Prabhudeep as per Customer Application Form Exhibit-P.156. Mobile no. 7388888810 was registered in the name of Vidur Aditya as per Customer Application Form Exhibit-P.363. Certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act have been exhibited as Exhibits-P.362 and P.356. Call details have been exhibited as Exhibit-P.227. Mobile no. 7275575575 recovered from him was registered in the name of Prabhudeep as per Customer Application Form Exhibit-P.156. Mobile no. 7388888810 was registered in the name of Vidur Aditya as per Customer Application Form Exhibit-P.363. Certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act have been exhibited as Exhibits-P.362 and P.356. Call details have been exhibited as Exhibit-P.227. Call details of Anoop and Ankur Padiya have also been produced in evidence as Exhibits-P. 230, P.359, P.361 which prove that convict Anoop was in constant contact with convict Ankur Padiya. Certificates under Section 65B have also been produced in evidence. On the basis of information of convict Anoop Padiya under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Rs.41,000/- were recovered from Anoop Padiya as per Exhibit-P. 103. 81. Prosecution has also produced additional evidence in relation to convict Karanjeet. Prosecution has produced witnesses who have deposed that fake mobile SIMs were purchased from convict Karanjeet. Article 13, diary has been recovered in this regard, which was seized during investigation and Exhibit-P.111 was prepared. As per oral and documentary evidence, it has been proved that convict Ankur Padiya purchased nine SIMs from convict Karanjeet, which were in possession of convict Karanjeet. These SIMs were procured by Karanjeet, either by theft or by some other unauthorised means. The SIMs which were purchased by convict Ankur Padiya were used by Ankur Padiya and Anoop in the commission of the crime. Diary which was seized (Exhibit-P.111) was used by convict Karanjeet in regular course of business and it had entries relating to daily sale and purchase by him. Different seizures of SIMs and call detail records, placed on record also support the case of the prosecution. 82. The prosecution has also placed on record additional evidence relating to convict Mahaveer. During investigation, he gave information to the police that on 13.10.2014, he helped convict Ankur Padiya to destroy handkerchiefs, empty boxes of mobiles, black film of Micra Nissan car, the turban beard etc., which were purchased by Ankur Padiya for disguising himself. The information was recorded as Exhibit-P.207. Remains of the burnt articles were recovered from that place. Convict Mahaveer also got recovered two mobiles - SIM nos. 7619738076 and9829082039. These mobiles were used for conversation before and after the commission of the offence and convict Mahaveer also used these mobiles for informing convict Ankur Padiya about the police movements. The information was recorded as Exhibit-P.207. Remains of the burnt articles were recovered from that place. Convict Mahaveer also got recovered two mobiles - SIM nos. 7619738076 and9829082039. These mobiles were used for conversation before and after the commission of the offence and convict Mahaveer also used these mobiles for informing convict Ankur Padiya about the police movements. Thus, convict Mahaveer assisted convict Ankur Padiya in the destruction of evidence of the offence. Mobile was also recovered on his information and Exhibit-P.55 was prepared. 83. Thus, prosecution has led sufficient evidence on the point of involvement of convicts Anoop, Karanjeet and Mahaveer, who were convicted by the learned trial court for different offences based on their involvement in the crime. 84. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the entire investigation in this case was unfair. Police investigated the case just to file charge-sheet against the convicts. It was a case of media trial. Evidence collected on the basis of such defective investigation cannot be relied upon. In this regard reliance has been placed on following judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court :- Jamuna Choudhary and Ors v. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822 "The duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth." State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 303 "The accused cannot be expected to relinquish his innocence at the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with investigative deficiencies. The benefit of doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused." Gargi v. State of Haryana (2019) 9 SCC 738 "The above-mentioned unexplained shortcomings, perforce, indicate that in this case, the investigation was carried out either with pre-conceived notions or with a particular result in view. It is difficult to accept that the investigation in this case had been fair and impartial. From another viewpoint, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the omissions on the part of investigating agency cannot be ignored as mere oversight. It is difficult to accept that the investigation in this case had been fair and impartial. From another viewpoint, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the omissions on the part of investigating agency cannot be ignored as mere oversight. These omissions, perforce, give rise to adverse inferences agains the prosecution." R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 "It is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offences must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly or with any ulterior motive." 85. Undoubtedly, the legal position is that investigation of any case should be fair, impartial and evidence must be collected objectively without any kind of prejudice. If the investigation is defective or biased, then no reliance can be placed on the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the conviction cannot be based upon such evidence, but in this case the circumstances, which have been proved on the basis of evidence as discussed above are reliable, trustworthy and proved by sufficient and cogent evidence. Looking to the nature of evidence which has been placed on record by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the investigation was biased or defective or motivated. The prosecution has proved several circumstances against the convicts. It has also relied upon scientific, expert and medical evidence to connect the convicts with the crime. 86. It has also been argued on behalf of the convicts that CCTV footage was not produced in the court during trial. Convicts were not supplied copies of all the CDs and due to this, they have been prejudiced in their defence. Reliance has been placed upon the following observations of Apex Court in P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 1 : - "In conclusion, we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the Accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial." 87. In this case, though the prosecution has relied upon CCTV footage of the car, but this is not the only piece of evidence available against the convicts. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the Accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial." 87. In this case, though the prosecution has relied upon CCTV footage of the car, but this is not the only piece of evidence available against the convicts. The prosecution has proved several other circumstances against the convicts, as discussed above. Thus, mere non-supply of copy of CCTV footage of the CDs of Exhibit-P.29 to the convicts, cannot be held to have vitiated the proceedings, and no suspicion can be raised on this count. Witnesses have deposed about the contents of CCTV footage, which must be considered in totality of the evidence led by the prosecution. The prosecution has also placed on record the FSL report relating to CCTV footage which corroborates the prosecution case. Thus, this argument made on behalf of the convicts cannot be accepted that the evidence relating to CCTV footage makes the case doubtful. 88. It has further been argued that conduct of the witnesses in this case were so unnatural that their deposition cannot be accepted in view of normal human behaviour and their testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded. Reliance has been placed upon the following observations made by Apex Court in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417 :- "Thus, it differs from individuals to individuals. There cannot be uniformity in human reaction. While the said principle has to be kept in mind, it is also to be borne in mind that if the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with acceptable human behaviour allowing of variations, then his testimony becomes questionable and is likely to be discarded." 89. This argument made on behalf of the convicts that the conduct of witnesses in this case was unnatural, has no basis in view of the detailed discussion on the testimony of those witnesses. Rather, the conduct of the convicts has been found to be unnatural keeping in mind the evidence relating to their conduct prior and subsequent to the commission of the offence. 90. Rather, the conduct of the convicts has been found to be unnatural keeping in mind the evidence relating to their conduct prior and subsequent to the commission of the offence. 90. It has further been argued on behalf of the convicts that the photo of convict Ankur Padiya was published in newspaper and his photo was also in circulation in social media, hence no credence can be given to his identification by the witnesses in court or identification of photo of convict Ankur Padiya by the witnesses. In this regard, reliance has been placed on following observation of Apex Court in Laxmipat Choraria and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 938 :- "The next question is whether Ethyl Wong's identification of Laxmipat and Balchand, whose photographs were shown to her at the Air Terminal at Bombay should be accepted. Reference in this connection has been made to English cases in which it has been laid down that the showing of a large number of photographs to a witness and asking him to pick out that of the suspect is a proper procedure but showing a photograph and asking the witness whether it is of the offender is improper. We need not refer to these cases because we entirely agree with the proposition. There can be no doubt that if the intention is to rely on the identification of the suspect by a witness, his ability to identify should be tested without showing him the suspect or his photograph, or furnishing him the data for identification. Showing a photograph prior to the identification makes the identification worthless." Reliance has also been placed on following observation of Apex Court in the case of Seeni Nainar Mohammed and Ors. v. State Rep, by Deputy Superintendent of Police (2017) 13 SCC 685 :- "We accept the contention of the learned senior Counsel for the Appellants that the test identification parade was a farce as after the pictures of the Accused had been published in the newspaper, the identification parade which is a very weak piece of evidence should not have been conducted." 91. It is true that if any person is to be identified by witnesses and a photo of that person is shown to the witnesses prior to his identification, such identification cannot be relied upon, but this depends upon the facts of a case. It is true that if any person is to be identified by witnesses and a photo of that person is shown to the witnesses prior to his identification, such identification cannot be relied upon, but this depends upon the facts of a case. Witnesses who have identified convict Ankur Padiya in court had occasion to meet him earlier either in relation to some work or otherwise in a chance meeting etc. The time duration for which the witneses had been in the company of convict Ankur Padiya, was also considerable. Hence, it cannot be said that those witnesses were not knowing the convict, Ankur Padiya and their identification of convict Ankur Padiya in court cannot be doubted. Thus the evidence relating to the identification of convict Ankur Padiya in court, cannot be thrown out. 92. It has also been submitted on behalf of the convicts that experts' evidence cannot be treated as conclusive and no conviction can be based upon experts' evidence. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following observation of Apex Court in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammed Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 :- "We have so far not considered the evidence of the experts. Mr. Bennett examined by the appellant supports the appellant's case, whereas Nasrat Hussain examined by the respondent supports his case. Evidence given by experts of handwriting can never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence." 93. It is true that evidence given by the experts cannot be considered to be conclusive, but in this case the prosecution has produced other circumstantial evidence against the convicts apart from experts' evidence against them. Hence, this case cannot be treated to be based solely upon experts' evidence. 94. It has also been submitted on behalf of the convicts that they have been prejudiced by improper examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied in its true spirit. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the observations of Apex Court in Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 341 , which reads thus :- "The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give... It is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material substance which is intended to be used against him. The questionings must be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. Fairness, therefore, requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand." 95. The convicts have been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case and a perusal of their examination reveals that all the circumstances appearing against them had been put to them and they were afforded opportunity to explain all these circumstances, but the convicts failed to explain those circumstances which the prosecution had proved against them. The only explanation given by them was that they had been falsely implicated and they were made to sign on blank papers by police, but they failed to explain various circumstances regarding which questions were put to them. Law in this regard is well settled. The only explanation given by them was that they had been falsely implicated and they were made to sign on blank papers by police, but they failed to explain various circumstances regarding which questions were put to them. Law in this regard is well settled. In Rajkumar v. State of M.P. (2014) 5 SCC 353 / MANU/SC/0136/2014, it has been observed by Apex Court :- "The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law. (Vide: Ramnaresh and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0163/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 1357 ; Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0811/2012 : AIR 2013 SC 912 ; and Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0468/2013 : AIR 2013 SC 3150 )." 96. Similarly, in Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan (2019) 4 SCC 438 / MANU/SC/1312/2018, it has been observed as under :- "No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the Accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure as to when he parted the company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The silence on the part of the Accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the Accused." 97. In this case also, during the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, convicts failed to explain the circumstances appearing against them. 98. The silence on the part of the Accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the Accused." 97. In this case also, during the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, convicts failed to explain the circumstances appearing against them. 98. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellants that no adequate legal assistance was provided to the convicts during trial as the case was highlighted in media and due to this, the Bar Association of Kota passed a resolution that no member of the Bar Association would appear for the convicts, hence the trial is vitiated due to want of adequate and proper legal assistance, being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the argument on behalf of the convict-appellants has been that they were deprived of the legal assistance and due to this they were not able to defend themselves properly, but perusal of the record of trial court reveals that all the witnesses appearing on behalf of the prosecution were cross-examined at length and it cannot be made out from the record that appellants were either unrepresented or inadequately represented during the trial. Thus, in this view of the matter the submission of appellants that the trial is vitiated due to lack of adequate legal assistance to them, cannot be accepted. 99. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has proved several circumstances against the convicts, such as medical evidence, voice examination of convict Ankur Padiya, handwriting examination of Ankur Padiya, electronic evidence, forensic evidence, call detail records and recoveries made at the instance of convicts, recovery of handwritten note of Ankur Padiya, motive etc. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the convicts on the basis of circumstantial evidence keeping in view the law laid down in Anjan Kumar Sarma and Ors. v. State of Assam (supra). 100. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota has thus rightly ordered conviction of all the convicts. 101. v. State of Assam (supra). 100. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota has thus rightly ordered conviction of all the convicts. 101. It was submitted on behalf of convicts Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh that looking to the nature of offence, they be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, as there are no criminal antecedents against them. 102. We have considered the submission. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the crime, we do not consider it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the convicts Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh. 103. The learned trial court has awarded death sentence to convict Ankur Padiya for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364Aof IPC. 104. It is settled position of law that death sentence must be imposed only when imprisonment for life appears altogether to be an inadequate punishment having regard to all aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime. The court has to struck a just balance between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to decide about the imposition of death penalty. Imprisonment for life is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence has to be awarded in rarest of rare case when the court believes on the basis of all the facts of the case that other than death sentence no other sentence would be appropriate. Law on this point is well settled as discussed in the case of Ramnaresh and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4 SCC 257 : MANU/SC/0163/2012 and in the case of Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1983) 3 SCC 470 : MANU/SC/0211/1983, and in other cases. 105. Learned trial court has, after considering various facts and circumstances of the case, awarded death sentence to the convict Ankur Padiya for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364A of IPC, however, we are of the considered opinion that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present case does not fall within the ambit of rarest of rare case inviting death penalty. 106. 106. Resultantly, while upholding the conviction of convict Ankur Padiya for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 364A of IPC, we set aside the death sentence awarded to the convict Ankur Padiya and convert the same to imprisonment for life. Thus for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC convict Ankur Padiya is sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. One lakh, in case of default to pay fine the convict will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Similarly for offence punishable under Section 364A of IPC convict Ankur Padiya is sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. One lakh, in case of default to pay fine the convict will further undergo additional imprisonment for one year. It is also ordered that convict Ankur Padiya would serve minimum period of twenty-five years' sentence excluding remission, before his case can be considered for premature release. 107. The conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court for other offences against convict Ankur Padiya are upheld and appeal filed by convict Ankur Padiya stands disposed of accordingly. 108. The conviction and sentences of other convicts, namely Anoop Padiya @ Santosh Singh, Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh passed by the learned trial court, are also upheld. The appeals filed by convict-appellants Anoop Padiya @ Santosh Singh, Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh, are accordingly dismissed. Convict-appellants Mahaveer Sharma and Karanjeet Singh are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to betaken into custody forthwith to serve their remaining periods of sentences passed by learned trial court. Learned trial court is directed to proceed accordingly. 109. Consequently, the Criminal Death Reference No. 1/2019 filed by the State stands declined. 110. Misc. Application No. 1/2019 in Criminal Death Reference No. 1/2019 also stands disposed of accordingly.