JUDGMENT : A. P. Thaker, J. 1. Both these appeals have been preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18th June, 2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals @ Godhra in Sessions Case No.200 of 2010, whereby, both the accused came to be convicted under Sections 302 read with Sections 120B and 114 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 120B and 114 of the IPC with fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, RI for six months and to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof, RI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a love affair between Sejalben (accused - appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1484 of 2013) and deceased Pinakin Patel and the deceased had told her to marry him. It is further the case of the prosecution that as there were differences, the deceased had deserted Sejalben. It is further the case that thereafter Sejalben had love relationship with other accused Jayendra Bachubhai Damor (accused - appellant of Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2014). Despite that, the deceased used to harass Sejalben on phone. It is the specific case of the prosecution that both the accused have hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased Pinakin. That Sejal, on 07.09.2010, called the deceased Pinakin on his mobile and called him from Vadodara and as per pre-planned, they came to Pavagadh by bus. Accused Jayendra had also gone to Pavagadh in bus. 2.1. It is further the case of the prosecution that Sejalben and deceased Pinakin stayed together in Room No.101 of Champaner Hotel, whereas, accused Jayendrakumar had stayed in Room No.206 of the same Hotel. That, as part of the conspiracy, Sejal had, on 07.09.2010 in the noon hours, sent Pinakin out of the room for some work and called accused Jayendra in the room where the said Jayendra hide himself. 2.2. That when Pinakin had returned to the room at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening, the accused Sejal, with an intention to kill the deceased, inflicted blows of hammer on his head and caught hold both of his hands. 2.2. That when Pinakin had returned to the room at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening, the accused Sejal, with an intention to kill the deceased, inflicted blows of hammer on his head and caught hold both of his hands. At that time, accused Jayendra has also inflicted 4 to 5 blows of hammer and made the deceased drink some poisonous liquid. It is further the case of the prosecution that Sejal, believing the deceased to be alive, wrapped around his neck, her duppata and then both the accused pulled the edges and thereby suffocated him which resulted into the death of Pinakin. 2.3. That as the key of room No.101 had not been returned on 08.09.2010, PW-10 viz. Padamsinh Darjansinh Rana informed the Manager of the hotel viz. Mr Harisinh Gambhirsinh Barad. That thereafter, P.W-10 along with the complainant - Manager, Nagrajbhai, Hirabhai Motibhai Patel, Rameshbhai Mangalbhai Solanki and Ramabhai Bhimabhai Tadvi went to room No.101 and tried to open the door with duplicate key. As the lock could not be opened, the lock was broken and upon opening the door, they saw the dead body of the deceased with black colour duppata wrapped around his neck. 2.4. Thereafter, the Manager of the hotel viz. Mr.Harisinh Gambhirsinh Barad lodged the complaint before Pavagadh Police Station on 08.09.2010, which is registered as C.R.No. I-57 of 2010 under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 114 of the IPC. On registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out and accused were arrested and after due investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before learned JMFC, Halol on 14.12.2010. 3. The learned JMFC, after verifying that the accused have received copy of police papers and as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, has committed the same to the Sessions Court, Panchmahals @ Godhra where it was registered as Sessions Case No.200 of 2010. 4. The learned Sessions Court has framed the charge at Exh.2 against both the accused, whereupon, the accused have denied of having committed any offence and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution has in all examined 40 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence as per para 7 and 8 of the judgment. 4.1. 4. The learned Sessions Court has framed the charge at Exh.2 against both the accused, whereupon, the accused have denied of having committed any offence and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution has in all examined 40 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence as per para 7 and 8 of the judgment. 4.1. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, further statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the accused were recorded, wherein, they have denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded that they are innocent. On appreciation of entire oral as well as documentary evidence, ultimately, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order of conviction and sentence, as referred to hereinabove. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the appellants and learned APP Mr.Hardik Soni for the prosecution at length. Perused the entire evidence produced on record and the decisions cited at bar. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the appellants – accused has vehemently submitted that the prosecution has not proved the motive behind the commission of the crime. He has submitted that as far as motive behind the commission of the crime is concerned, as figuring in the charge itself is because of a love triangle between the accused persons and the deceased. He has submitted that as per the prosecution case, as the deceased was harassing accused Sejal on mobile phone, out of a pre-arranged conspiracy hatched, the deceased Pinakin was done to death by calling him at room No.101 of hotel Champaner. While referring the evidence on record, Mr. Barot has submitted that there is no direct evidence or a witness thereof examined by the prosecution regarding such love triangle. Mr.Barot also referred to the evidence of PW 26 – Dipal Gandhi and submitted that according to this witness, once the deceased has told him regarding his relationship with a girl called Sejal, who is studying at Rajkot and belonging to Dahod. Mr. Barot has submitted that this version of the prosecution is completely hearsay evidence which cannot be sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged crime and the motive. According to him, no specific date, month or year is spoken by the said witness. Mr. Barot has submitted that this version of the prosecution is completely hearsay evidence which cannot be sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged crime and the motive. According to him, no specific date, month or year is spoken by the said witness. He has also submitted that according to the cross-examination of this witness, he had rather stated before the police that deceased Pinakin had some relationship with sister of one of his friends, name of whom, the witness was not aware of. Mr. Barot has submitted that thus in absence of proof of motive, the case of the prosecution, which is based upon circumstantial evidence cannot be believed. 7. Mr. Barot has also submitted that so far as the aspect of criminal conspiracy is concerned, even there is no evidence produced by the prosecution in this regard. He has submitted that there is no evidence to say and suggest that both the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy at a particular place and on a particular date so as to execute the plan of murder of the deceased. He has submitted that the evidence on record in relation to entry and presence of both the accused with deceased as on 07.09.2010 in room No.101 and 206 of hotel Champaner has not been proved by clinching and reliable evidence. 8. Mr. Barot, while referring to the evidence of various witnesses, who are the persons belonging to Champaner hotel and the documentary evidence which consists of Register of the hotel, has submitted that all these evidence do not clearly establish the fact that both the accused were present at the same time and in the same room. He has also submitted that obtaining of 36 specimen signatures of accused Jayendra while drawing panchnama Exh.58 itself is not sufficient evidence. He has submitted that even the report at Exh.108 of handwriting expert regarding the fact that the signatures of Jayendra obtained in Panchnama Exh.58 matches with the signature on the register of the hotel is not the sufficient proof to connect the accused with the crime. He has submitted that even the report at Exh.108 of handwriting expert regarding the fact that the signatures of Jayendra obtained in Panchnama Exh.58 matches with the signature on the register of the hotel is not the sufficient proof to connect the accused with the crime. He has submitted that the report produced in the matter of handwriting expert cannot be deemed to be proved in accordance with law and as per Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless and until the author of the said report is examined by the prosecution, no cognizance can be taken of the said report nor can be read into the evidence against the accused Jayendr as one circumstance. 9. Mr. Barot has also submitted that the prosecution has heavily relied upon the discovery panchnama regarding the seizure of the cloths of the lady accused as well as watch of the deceased and the hammer at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. According to Mr. Barot, the said discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not properly established while reading the oral evidence and the panchnama at Exh.27 and other evidence. It is the contention of Mr. Barot that as per the evidence on record, police was well aware with the spot in advance from where the discovery was to be effected and therefore the entire evidence as regards discovery is not worthy of credence even though one panch witness has supported the factum of recovery. 10. Mr. Barot has also submitted that the prosecution is also heavily relying upon Test Identification Parade of both the accused by the Mamlatdar. While reading the evidence of the Mamlatdar and the Panchnama thereof, Mr. Barot submitted that the exercise undertaken by the Executive Magistrate is not proper. He has stated that the Executive Magistrate has not kept the persons having same description of the accused persons. Even the description of the dummy persons has not been mentioned in the panchnama. He has submitted that as per the evidence of Executive Magistrate, all the dummy persons and accused Jayendra were brought to his chamber with open face and the burkha which was covering the face of accused Jayendra was removed in the record room itself. He has submitted that there is no recovery of Burkha done by drawing any panchnama. He has submitted that as per the evidence of Executive Magistrate, all the dummy persons and accused Jayendra were brought to his chamber with open face and the burkha which was covering the face of accused Jayendra was removed in the record room itself. He has submitted that there is no recovery of Burkha done by drawing any panchnama. He has also submitted that the Executive Magistrate has admitted in his evidence that there is no mention in the entire panchnama as to clothes worn by accused Jayendra nor there is any description about of accused Jayendra. He has also submitted that likewise in the case of identification of Sejalben, no proper care has been taken by the Executive Magistrate and therefore the evidence and reliance placed upon T.I.Parade cannot be considered as circumstance against the accused. 11. Mr. Barot has also submitted that the prosecution has also failed to prove the fact that in reality the deceased was called by Sejal and both the accused persons have also met at Hotel Champaner. While reading the evidence of various students and other evidence, Mr. Barot has submitted that there is no reliable evidence to connect the accused. He has also submitted that the prosecution is relying upon CDR records. However, there is no certification done under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act in regard of the CDR and therefore the mobile CDR record Exh.123, 124 and 125 cannot be used to connect the accused with the crime. 12. Mr. Barot has also submitted that the mobile CDR record is also not proved by the prosecution by examining the expert thereof and due to absence of certification under the Evidence Act. 13. Mr. Barot has submitted that one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is in relation to the allegation that the accused Jayendra has purchased poison from one Bharat Patel. Mr. Barot, while reading the evidence of that witness, has submitted that no Test Identification Parade of the accused has been carried out in presence of this witness. He has also submitted that no bill of purchase of such poison has been produced by the prosecution. While referring to the evidence of medical officer Dr. Amin Kotadiya, Mr.Barot has submitted that this witness has not opined as to blood samples of viscera of the deceased carrying poison in it. He has also submitted that no bill of purchase of such poison has been produced by the prosecution. While referring to the evidence of medical officer Dr. Amin Kotadiya, Mr.Barot has submitted that this witness has not opined as to blood samples of viscera of the deceased carrying poison in it. He has submitted that unless poison is detected in the blood of the deceased or from any of the bottles in which there was liquid found, the theory of deceased being done to death with the help of poison cannot be said to be proved against the accused. 14. Mr. Barot, while referring to the evidence of Bhanuben – PW 32, has also stated that the prosecution theory that hammer was used is also not proved through this witness. He has submitted that according to this witness, the hammer was borrowed by accused Jayendra on 03.09.2010 and on the same day it was returned back to her. He has submitted that thus the use of hammer by both the accused on 07.09.2010 is not established beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Regarding the FSL and Serological Report, it has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Barot that blood marks which were initially not noticed on the pant of accused Jayendra in the discovery panchnama raises the question as to how the blood is detected on the pant of the accused in Serological Report. He has submitted that, therefore, report Exh.147 and 148 are not helpful to the case of the prosecution. 16. While referring to the panchnama of scene of offence from where Duppata was found, Mr.Barot has submitted that punch witness has turned hostile and therefore the recovery of Duppata even by PW-5 at the time of recovering the clothes of the deceased, cannot be helpful to the prosecution to establish the use of Duppata by the accused persons. 17. 16. While referring to the panchnama of scene of offence from where Duppata was found, Mr.Barot has submitted that punch witness has turned hostile and therefore the recovery of Duppata even by PW-5 at the time of recovering the clothes of the deceased, cannot be helpful to the prosecution to establish the use of Duppata by the accused persons. 17. Mr.Barot, while referring to the evidence of police witnesses, has submitted that from the evidence of the said witnesses it is revealed that accused Sejal was not using any individual mobile handset for her own and there was no proof available with the police suggesting as to what was the nature of talk took place with deceased Pinakin, the evidence and the evidence led by the prosecution regarding hatching of the conspiracy of murder of the deceased and ultimately commission of crime of murder cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 18. Mr. Barot, while relying upon the following decisions, has prayed to allow both the criminal appeals and to acquit the accused from the crime. 19. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni has vehemently submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has also submitted that all the circumstances have been completely proved by the prosecution by the evidence which is in the shape of oral as well as documentary. Learned APP has also submitted that discovery panchnama has also been proved by the prosecution. He has submitted that on the date of incident both the accused have reached to Champaner Hotel. He has also submitted that presence of accused Jayendra with other passenger has also been proved from the register of the hotel and the evidence of employees of the hotel. He has submitted that signature of the accused Jayendra has also been proved by the FSL report. He has submitted that even under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a report of the handwriting expert can be used for connecting the accused with the crime. He has submitted that as no objection was raised at the relevant point of time against the admission of this document i.e. handwriting report by the defence, now, at this stage, no such defence can be raised. He has submitted that as no objection was raised at the relevant point of time against the admission of this document i.e. handwriting report by the defence, now, at this stage, no such defence can be raised. Learned APP has also referred to the entire oral and documentary evidence and has submitted that the presence of both the accused in the Hotel has been duly proved and discovery of the muddamal at the instance accused is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the defence are factually not applicable in the present case. He has stated that the learned Sessions Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution in proper perspective and has not committed any error of facts and or law in convicting and sentencing the accused. He has submitted to dismiss both the appeals. 19.1. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal @ Munno Usmanbhai Chauhan, reported in 1996(2) GLR 821 , in para 8 has observed as under:- (8.) Much has been emphasized upon the identification parade. Mahesh P. Pandya, the Deputy Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, held the identification parade. His evidence is recorded at Exh. 17. Before we discuss about his evidence, we may refer to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Motilal Gajarbhai Chasisiya v. State of Guj.- 1988 (1) G.L.H. 264 , where it is laid down that, while holding the identification parade, care should be taken to procure the dummies of nearly the same age and physique of the accused, so that the accused may not be wrongly identified, and involved with the crime. In this case, we find the identification parade held was perfunctory and an empty formality also. Nothing has been mentioned in the I. P. panchnama (Exh. 15) of what height the dummies were. The Deputy Mamlatdar selected the dummies of the age of 20, 32, 43, 36 and 27 years. He did not take care to select the dummies falling within the same age group. The persons having similar physique were also not selected. It seems the Executive Magistrate did not ascertain the description of the respondent so as to select almost similar dummies. He did not take care to select the dummies falling within the same age group. The persons having similar physique were also not selected. It seems the Executive Magistrate did not ascertain the description of the respondent so as to select almost similar dummies. Description of the person selected as the dummies is also not mentioned in the panchnama, but with a view to fill up the gaps that remained in the panchnama, the Deputy Mamlatdar has made rectifying statement at the time of his evidence. The panchas selected were the managers of the mid-day meal scheme. The panch witness (Exh. 14) has made it clear that they had to obtain the permit from the Mamlatdar's office for the mid-day meal scheme. Both the panchas were therefore not above the dominating effect of the Executive Magistrate. The panchas will therefore like to be attuned to the requirements of the prosecution and will never be impartial and bold. The dummies from the village of the respondent were not selected. In view of such circumstances it was easy for Bhikhiben to single out the respondent. The identification parade held therefore cannot be termed veracious and credible, and consistent with the law made clear in the above referred decision. The learned Judge has elaborately dealt with the point of the identification parade assigning adequate reasons. We do not find any reason to disagree with him. We, therefore, cannot agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant in this regard. 19.2. In the case of Varsha Garg Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3707, in para 28 to 30, 32 and 34 has observed as under:- 28. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section 311 provides that the Court "may": (i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and (ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined. This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. Section 311 provides that the Court "may": (i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and (ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined. This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the Court "shall" summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person "if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case" . Section 311 contains a power upon the Court in broad terms. The statutory provision must be read purposively, to achieve the intent of the statute to aid in the discovery of truth. 29. The first part of the statutory provision which uses the expression "may" postulates that the power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the recall of a witness by the Court as it uses the expression "shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case". Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the Court. The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary while the latter part is obligatory. 30. A two judge Bench of this Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni (supra) while dealing with pari materia provisions of Section 540 of the Criminal Code of Procedure 1898 observed: "16. The second part of Section 540 as pointed out albeit imposes upon the court an obligation of summoning or recalling and re-examining any witness and the only condition prescribed is that the evidence sought to be obtained must be essential to the just decision of the case. The second part of Section 540 as pointed out albeit imposes upon the court an obligation of summoning or recalling and re-examining any witness and the only condition prescribed is that the evidence sought to be obtained must be essential to the just decision of the case. When any party to the proceedings points out the desirability of some evidence being taken, then the court has to exercise its power under this provision either discretionary or mandatory depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, having in view that the most paramount principle underlying this provision is to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts in order to meet the requirements of justice." Justice S Ratnavel Pandian, speaking for the two judge Bench, noted that the power is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which it can be exercised or the manner of its exercise. It is only circumscribed by the principle that the "evidence to be obtained should appear to the court essential to a just decision of the case by getting at the truth by all lawful means." In that context the Court observed: "18 Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the aid of the section should be invoked only with the object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just decision of the case and it must be used judicially and not capriciously or arbitrarily because any improper or capricious exercise of the power may lead to undesirable results. Further it is incumbent that due care should be taken by the court while exercising the power under this section and it should not be used for filling up the lacuna left by the prosecution or by the defence or to the disadvantage of the accused or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused or to give an unfair advantage to the rival side and further the additional evidence should not be received as a disguise for a retrial or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties." 32. The power of the court is not constrained by the closure of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the above discussion that the broad powers under Section 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The power of the court is not constrained by the closure of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the above discussion that the broad powers under Section 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realization of justice is manifest. xxx xxx xxx 39. In the decision in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 which was more recently reiterated in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd., (2008) 11 SCC 108 the Court specifically dealt with this objection and observed that the resultant filling of loopholes on account of allowing an application under Section 311 is merely a subsidiary factor and the Courts determination of the application should only be based on the test of the essentiality of the evidence. It noted that: "28. The court is not empowered under the provisions of the Code to compel either the prosecution or the defence to examine any particular witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, the court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw an adverse inference. The court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has to act under the second part of the section. Sometimes the examination of witnesses as directed by the court may result in what is thought to be 'filling of loopholes'. That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge. (emphasis supplied) 19.3. That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge. (emphasis supplied) 19.3. In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotar, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 it is observed as under:- (73.2) The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the computer happens to be a part of a computer system or computer network and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). The last sentence in Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as...if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act...is thus clarified; it is to be read without the words under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,...With this clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited. 19.4. In the case of Supabhai Vestabhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2012) 3 GLR, 2593 it is observed as under :- (24.)Sec. 294 is totally a new Section inserted for the first time in the Code of 1974. A proper reading of the said Section persuade us to hold that it is meant to cover those documents which require only formal proof. It has been introduced for the purpose of accelerating the pace of criminal trial by dispensing with the formal proof of certain documents. Where the contents of a document are to be proved by examining the author of that document, the provisions of Sec. 294 of the Code cannot come into play. It has been introduced for the purpose of accelerating the pace of criminal trial by dispensing with the formal proof of certain documents. Where the contents of a document are to be proved by examining the author of that document, the provisions of Sec. 294 of the Code cannot come into play. Where the relevance of a document depends entirely on its genuineness, the procedure prescribed under Sec. 294 of the Code can be followed and once the genuineness is admitted, then that document itself may be read in evidence. (25.) In our opinion, the provisions of Sec. 294 are not meant for circumventing the provisions of the Evidence Act and in particular the provisions relating to the proof of certain facts which can only be done by examining the witnesses though those facts might have been mentioned in a document. Conceivably, Sec. 294 of the Code may cover letters written, photographs taken and it may also cover specimen handwriting and fingerprints. It is not necessary for our purpose to enumerate the documents which are conceivably covered by Sec. 294 of the Code. It is enough to mention that documents like memorandum of the postmortem examination, scene of offence panchnama, panchnama of the recovery of clothes of the accused at the time of arrest, are not such documents, the proof of which can be dispensed with by resorting to the provisions of Sec. 294 of the Code. The contents of such documents would not prove by itself. As we have already mentioned earlier, a document which is not a substantive evidence by itself and the contents of which have to be deposed to by a witness, can never be tendered in evidence by following the procedure mentioned in Sec. 294 of the Code. 19.5. In the case of V.N.Patil Vs. K.Niranjan Kumar, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 661 it has observed as under:- (14.) The scope of Section 311 CrPC which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereunder: "311. 19.5. In the case of V.N.Patil Vs. K.Niranjan Kumar, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 661 it has observed as under:- (14.) The scope of Section 311 CrPC which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereunder: "311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present-Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." (15.) The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said "wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion." (16.) The principles related to the exercise of the power under Section 311 CrPC have been well settled by this Court in Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2011(8) SCC 136 . "17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Before directing the learned Special Judge to examine Smt Ruchi Saxena as a court witness, the High Court did not examine the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge as to why it was not necessary to examine her as a court witness and has given the impugned direction without assigning any reason." (17.) This principle has been further reiterated in Mannan Shaikh and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Another 2014(13) SCC 59 and thereafter in Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat and Others 2017(9) SCC 340 and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2019(14) SCC 328 . The relevant paras of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee(supra) are as under: "10. The first part of this section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law." (18.) The aim of every Court is to discover the truth. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law." (18.) The aim of every Court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice. (22.) In the instant case, although the application was filed by the Ld. Additional Special Public Prosecutor under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC but it was open for the Ld. Trial Judge as well to exercise suo motu powers in summoning the witnesses whose statements ought to be recorded to sub-serve the cause of justice, with the object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth. 19.6. In the case of Mohd Firoz Vs. State of Madhyapradesh, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 443 , it has observed as under:- 22. It is true that the entire case of the prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as though certain facts were admitted by the appellant-accused in his further statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., like his visit to the house of the victim on the previous evening of the alleged incident, and he having been arrested and brought back from Bhagalpur, Bihar, as per the transit remand granted by the concerned court, there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. The law with regard to the appreciation of evidence when the case of the prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence is very well settled. The five golden principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Mahashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116 and followed in catena of decisions, are worth reproducing:- "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 :1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ1783] where the observations were made. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (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." 23. Keeping in mind the above set of principles, let us examine whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the accused to escape from the clutches of law. The first and foremost circumstance regarding the visit of the present appellant along with Rakesh Chaudhary on the date and time as alleged was very crucial and that was admitted by the appellant. By such admission, even his identity had stood proved. The first and foremost circumstance regarding the visit of the present appellant along with Rakesh Chaudhary on the date and time as alleged was very crucial and that was admitted by the appellant. By such admission, even his identity had stood proved. There cannot be gainsaying that no conviction could be based on the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused by leading independent and cogent evidence, nonetheless it is equally settled proposition of law that when the accused makes inculpatory and exculpatory statements, the inculpatory part of the statement can be taken aid of to lend credence to the case of prosecution. This Court while dealing with the issue of inculpatory and exculpatory statements of the accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has made very apt observations in case of Mohan Singh vs. Prem Singh & Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 236 - "27. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only apart of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. See Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar [ (1969) 1 SCC 347 : AIR 1969 SC 422 ] : (SCCpp. 357-58, para 23) "23. In this case the exculpatory part of the statement in Exhibit 6 is not only inherently improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence. According to this statement, the injury which the appellant received was caused by the appellant's attempt to catch hold of the hand of Lal Mohan Sharma to prevent the attack on the victim. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under Section 342 CrPC to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13-10-1961 negatives both these versions. This was contradicted by the statement of the accused himself under Section 342 CrPC to the effect that he had received the injury in a scuffle with a herdsman. The injury found on his body when he was examined by the doctor on 13-10-1961 negatives both these versions. Neither of these versions accounts for the profuse bleeding which led to his washing his clothes and having a bath in River Patro, the amount of bleeding and the washing of the bloodstains being so considerable as to attract the attention of Ram Kishore Pandey, PW 17 and asking him about the cause thereof. The bleeding was not a simple one as his clothes all got stained with blood as also his books, his exercise book and his belt and shoes. More than that the knife which was discovered on his person was found to have been stained with blood according to the report of the Chemical Examiner. According to the postmortem report this knife could have been the cause of the injuries on the victim. In circumstances like these there being enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement of the appellant in Exhibit 6 the High Court had acted rightly in accepting the inculpatory part and piercing the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime." 28.... 29.... "30. The statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. As held in the case of Nishi Kant [ (1969) 1 SCC 347 : AIR 1969 SC 422 ] by this Court, if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction." 24. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction." 24. In the instant case also, though the conviction of the appellant-accused could not be made merely on his admission of the circumstance of his visit to the house of the informant on the previous day evening of the fateful day, such admission could certainly be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. 19.7. In the case of Tara Singh Vs. State, reported in AIR 1951 SC 451, it is observed as under:- (30.) I cannot stress too strongly the importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Sec. 342 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It is not a proper compliance to read out a long string of questions and answers made in the Committal Court and ask whether the statement is correct. A question of that kind is misleading. It may mean either that the questioner wants to know whether the recording is correct, or whether the answers given are true, or whether there is some mistake or misunderstanding despite the accurate recording. In the next place, 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 circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The questioning Trust therefore be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused person is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. He is therefore in no fit position to understand the significance of a complex question. 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. He is therefore in no fit position to understand the significance of a complex question. 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. I do not suggest that every error or omission in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question in each case depends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the provisions of Sec.342 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood of prejudice. 19.8. Raju@ Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.1559 of 2022, it is observed as under:- 7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence by which it can be said that the appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased. There is no direct evidence recorded indicating involvement of the appellants in the crime and as observed hereinabove, the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 7.3 In the case of G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593 in paras 23 and 24, it is observed and held as under : "23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts. 24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. 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, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court." 19.9. In the case of Gopal @ Gopi Harmanbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 JX(Guj) 578, it is observed as under:- Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 27 - discovery evidence - whether admissible - discovery evidence, by itself, is subsidiary and cannot sustain a conviction but where there is plenty of other evidence to sustain prosecution case, discovery evidence may be treated as a valuable piece of corroborative evidence - in order to enable Court to safely rely on evidence of discovery of incriminating fact at instance of accused as contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act, it is necessary that exact words attributed to an accused, as statement made by him, be brought on record - for this purpose panch witnesses as well as investigating officer are obliged to depose in their evidence exact statement and not by merely stating that a discovery panchnama of weapon of offence was drawn as accused was wiling to take it out from a particular place - however, neither PW 9 has deposed anything about statement being made by accused nor investigating officer in his evidence has deposed anything about such statement being made by accused - what emerges from evidence is that appellant led panch witnesses and police party to his house and on reaching house he handed over scythe and shorts which he had worn at time of incident - this would not suggest that appellant indicated anything about his involvement in concealment of weapon - he could have derived knowledge of existence of that weapon at place through some other source - he may have even seen someone concealing weapon and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered a weapon, he was person who concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it - Trial Court committed an error in holding the accused guilty of the crime and was not justified in convicting the accused appellant - appeal allowed. 20. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides coupled with the evidence placed on record and the decisions cited at bar. It reveals from the record that the case of the prosecution is based upon the allegation that there was love triangle between the present two appellate accused and the deceased. 20. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides coupled with the evidence placed on record and the decisions cited at bar. It reveals from the record that the case of the prosecution is based upon the allegation that there was love triangle between the present two appellate accused and the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased had love affair with the lady accused and he was harassing the lady accused who fell in love with the male accused-appellant. To substantiate the allegation against the accused, the prosecution has examined various witnesses and has submitted the documentary evidence which consist of complaint, discovery of panchnama, discovery of clothes worn by the lady accused as well as seize of hammer, seize of various articles from the scene of panchnama, collection of specimen signature of male accused and the ultimate reports of hand writing experts including the FSL reports and the serological reports. From the medical evidence, it clearly proves that the death of the deceased was homicidal one. 21. On perusal of the evidence on record, it clearly reveals that Prosecution witness-1, Harisinh Gambhirsinh Barad (Exhibit-6), who has filed a complaint at Exhibit-7, in his evidence has narrated the sequence of the events in a manner that on the previous day of filing of the FIR, the deceased along with the lady accused arrived at the Hotel Champaner and room was handed to them. He has also stated that on the same day, the male accused along with other person, came in his hotel and he was given another room. He has also stated that on the date of event he was informed that the key of the room no. 101 has not been returned back. He along with other persons went to the room and there was lock over the room which was tried to be opened with duplicate key, but, it could not be opened. He has also stated that thereafter, lock was broken and on opening the door, the dead body of the deceased was found with dupatta over his neck and there were two bottles also found, blood stains were also found. He has stated that therefore, he has immediately informed the Police and on arrival of the Police, he lodged the complaint. He has also stated that thereafter, lock was broken and on opening the door, the dead body of the deceased was found with dupatta over his neck and there were two bottles also found, blood stains were also found. He has stated that therefore, he has immediately informed the Police and on arrival of the Police, he lodged the complaint. He has also stated that when he opened the door, the lady who was accompanying the deceased on earlier evening was not found. 21.1. He has also stated that the deceased and the lady came in the hotel at 03.50 p.m. and the staff member Padamsinh Dashrathsinh had made entry in the register and room no.101 was allotted to them. He has alos sated that on 08.09.2010 at 07.00 a.m. watchman Ramabhai Bhimabhai has went to inform all the tourists regarding availability of hot water and he returned back and informed that room no.101 was locked from inside and no one has opened it. 21.2. He has also stated that the panchnama of scene of offence was prepared in presence of two panchas by the Police and the Police has also recovered muddamal articles from the room as well as they have given copy of the hotel register to the Police. He has also stated that at the time of allotment of the room and making entry in the register, the deceased has given copy of his license and the mobile number and has also signed the register. He has produced a copy of register at Exhibit 8. 21.3. He has also stated that on 07.09.2010, other tourist namely Damor Jitendrabhai B., resident of Navagam, pody-Bordi, Taluka-Zalod also came and room no.206 was allotted to him and in that respect, entry no.1869 was made in the register and at that time, he has given caste certificate for identification and mobile number, he has written in the register himself and signed the same. He has stated that on the next day that fellow checked out from the hotel at 07.15 a.m. 21.4. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused, he has admitted that he has seen the lady accused Sejalben in the Police Station for the first time and there is no name or address or mobile number of lady accused Sejalben in Exhibit-8. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused, he has admitted that he has seen the lady accused Sejalben in the Police Station for the first time and there is no name or address or mobile number of lady accused Sejalben in Exhibit-8. He has admitted that in Exhibit-8, there is mention of two persons however, there is no mention regarding the gender of the persons. He has admitted that when the entry was made in the register, he was not present. He has admitted that Jayendrabhai has not made check out in his presence. He has admitted that he has not verified as to the fact whether the room no.101 was having lock outside or it was closed from inside, when Jayendrabhai left the hotel. He has admitted that he has not personal knowledge regarding the happening of the event, as to whether it was happened on 07.09.2010 or 08.09.2010. He has also admitted that there was no identification parade of both the accused through him before the Executive Magistrate. He has admitted that when he went in room no.101, Padamsinh was with him and he had informed him that deceased was a person along with whom one lady had came in hotel on previous day. He has admitted that in his FIR he has not made any reference as to the robbery of any materials of the deceased. 22. Prosecution witness-2, Doctor Aminbhai Kotadiya (Exhibit-11), who has performed the Postmortem report of the deceased on 08.09.2010, as narrated the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased which has mentioned in the Postmortem report in column no.17 and the corresponding injury also. He has also stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and there were ligature marks and even there was one cut mark on the testicle, as well as Increased wound, lateral to right eye, curvilinear with inverted margin 2.5 c.m x ½ cm wide. Laureated wound on lateral left forehead 2cm. X 1cm x ½cm x 1 cm x 1 cm deep with bleeding, CLW Rt forehead 2 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm deep. CLW in left temporal region head curvilinear 2.5.cm x 1cm x 1cm deep with averted margin. CLW in left post parietal head curvilinear 2.5en X 1cm X 1cm averted margin and CLW in the scroturn 1 cm. CLW in left temporal region head curvilinear 2.5.cm x 1cm x 1cm deep with averted margin. CLW in left post parietal head curvilinear 2.5en X 1cm X 1cm averted margin and CLW in the scroturn 1 cm. Ligation mark transverse completely encircling allover neck 1 1/2 inches wide at the level of thyroid cartilage. There was also continuos bruising on both side between neck shoulder (left side nearly 15 cm X 8 cm and right side nearly 10X4 cm. Bruising seen on right side maxillary temporal and part head. According to their opinion, the probable cause of death is because of throttling and strangulation as well as head injury. He has also stated that as per the FSL report, the final cause of death is cardiopulmonary failure due to throttling and strangulation as well as head injury and poisoning. 22.1. He has admitted that for commission of suicide a person can use poison and if one is trying to commit suicide by poison and at that time, if, other person want to save him, than, there might be possibility of some injury to the person who wants to commit suicide. He has admitted that he cannot opine as to whether the deceased has himself consumed the poison or somebody has made him to drink. He has stated that injury nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 as mentioned in column no.17 could be made with iron hammer. He has stated that the ligature mark found on the neck could be possible by the dupatta. 22.2. During the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that if the muddamal hammer is used by any person than it being an iron made, finger prints of that person would be found in it. He has admitted that if somebody used the same with hand gloves than there may not be any such signs. He has admitted that any person can himself make injury with the hammer to his own body. 23. Prosecution witness-3, Sureshbhai Vijaybhai Barot, (Exhibit-19) who is a panch witness to the inquest panchnama Exhibit 22, who is serving as cook in hotel Champaner has not supported the version of the prosecution initially. Thereafter he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 23. Prosecution witness-3, Sureshbhai Vijaybhai Barot, (Exhibit-19) who is a panch witness to the inquest panchnama Exhibit 22, who is serving as cook in hotel Champaner has not supported the version of the prosecution initially. Thereafter he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. During such cross-examination on behalf of prosecution, he has admitted that he went in room no.101 of Champaner Hotel as Police has called him and Police has shown him panchnama of the dead body in room no.101 and at that time, other panch as well as Police were present and he had signed it. However, regarding the recovery of the is article which includes the hair, dupatta etc. by that panchnama, he has not supported the version of the prosecution. 23.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that Police has obtained his signature on readymade panchnama at Exhibit 20 and it was not read over to him. He has admitted that at the time of said panchnama, hotel manager Harisinh Barad was present and the FIR was lodged by Harisinh Barad and due to that Police arrived at and as the manager Harisinh has called him to remain as panch, he remained present. He has admitted that he has not went into room no.101 nor has seen the dead body in room no.101. He has admitted that at the instance of manager Harisinh Barad and the Police he has signed the ready made panchnama at Exhibit 20 and at that time other persons had also signed it. 24. Prosecution witness-4, Sureshbhai Shankarbhai Variya, (Exhibit 21), 2nd Panch witness to an inquest panchnama vide Exhibit 20 and who is serving as waiter at Hotel Champaner in his evidence has stated that he is serving as waiter in the Hotel and the incident happened prior to one year of his deposition. He has stated that there was murder of one person in room no.101 and Police called him to make panchnama of the dead body and accordingly, he has narrated the contents of the panchnama and he has signed panchnama at Exhibit 20. During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that when he has seen dead body in room no.101, at that time manager Harisinh Barad, Ramjibhai Tadvi, Padamsinh Rana, Suresh Barot and himself all were there and it was 11.00 am to 12.00 pm. During his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that when he has seen dead body in room no.101, at that time manager Harisinh Barad, Ramjibhai Tadvi, Padamsinh Rana, Suresh Barot and himself all were there and it was 11.00 am to 12.00 pm. He has stated that there were 5 to 6 Policemen. He has stated that panchnama was being written on the basis of what was seen on the dead body. He stated that when the panchnama was dictated, his manager Harisinh was present outside. He has admitted that he has not dictated anything in the panchnama. 25. Prosecution witness-5, Devendrabhai Jayantilal Trivedi,(Exhibit-22) who is a 1st Panch witness to the panchnama vide Exhibit 23 as pertaining to the recovery of the clothes of the deceased, in his deposition has stated that at the instance of the Police, he went to Police Station where panchnama of the clothes of the deceased was prepared. He has identified his signature and also the clothes of the deceased and one dupatta. He has stated that when he has signed the panchnama, other panch Nareshbhai Sharma was also with him. 25.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that Pawagadh Police Station is in Pawagadh whereas he was called from Machi to Pawagadh. He has admitted that as the incident has happened in Champaner Hotel Machi, he was called as panch. He has admitted that as on the date of incident, he was on leave, he has no knowledge regarding the lady accused. He has admitted that the muddamal article no.13 is vest and muddamal article no.15 which is dupatta is not full but is half and is a piece of dupatta only. He has stated that he has no knowledge as to from where the muddamal clothes were brought by the Police. 26. He has admitted that the muddamal article no.13 is vest and muddamal article no.15 which is dupatta is not full but is half and is a piece of dupatta only. He has stated that he has no knowledge as to from where the muddamal clothes were brought by the Police. 26. Prosecution witness-6, Nareshbhai Sonahlal Sharma, (Exhibit-27) who is a 2nd panch witness to a panchnama vide Exhibit 23 as pertaining to the recovery of the clothes of the deceased and 1st panch witness to a discovery panchnama vide Exhibit 28 as to certain articles found from village Vada, has not supported the basic version of the prosecution that clothes of the deceased was seized by making panchnama as well as the factum of discovery of certain clothes of the accused as well as wrist watch, idea sim card, recovery of the clothes of the lady accused, keychain of the room no.101 of Champaner Hotel. As the witness had not supported the basic version of the prosecution, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution, however, in the cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, he has only identified his signature on both the panchnama but did not supported the prosecution on the contents of both the panchnama. However, in the cross-examination on behalf of accused, he has admitted that both the panchnama was ready made and the Police had obtained his signature thereof. He has admitted that he has not gone with the Police in village Vada and in his presence nothing was recovered at the instance of accused. 27. Prosecution witness-7, Amabalal Bhikhalal Solanki (Exhibit 37) who is a panch witness of a panchnama vide Exhibit 50 as to recovery of certain articles from room no.101 of the Hotel Champaner, in his deposition has supported the basic version of the prosecution regarding recovery of various articles and preparation of the scene of offence. He has stated that the other panch was one Mr.Somabhai Saburbhai. He has also identified all the muddamal articles produced in this matter which have been seized vide panchnama from room no.101. 27.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that the contentions made in the panchnama at Exhibit 50 was dictated neither by him nor Somabhai to the Police. He has also identified all the muddamal articles produced in this matter which have been seized vide panchnama from room no.101. 27.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that the contentions made in the panchnama at Exhibit 50 was dictated neither by him nor Somabhai to the Police. He has stated that he has no knowledge as to the recovery of lock and as stated that there are many mistakes committed by him while narrating the facts. He has admitted that he has no knowledge regarding the hair seized by the Police and it was not shown to him at the time of panchnama. He has admitted that the compliant was filed by manager Harisinh. 28. Prosecution witness-8, Nasirkhan Gafarkhan Pathan (Exhibit-51), who is 2nd Panch witness to the discovery panchnama vide Exhibit 28 as to certain articles recovered from village Vada and a panch witness to a panchnama Exhibit 52 as to recovery of hair sample of accused Sejalben as also recovery of mobile phones belonging to both the accused, in his evidence has supported the version of the prosecution and has identified both the accused and has stated that at the instance of the accused, the muddamal were discovered from the village Vada. He has stated that accused Jayendrabhai took them near one house and accused Jayendrabhai has produced mobile, wrist watch, however, mobile was not found as accused has told that it was thrown in the pond. He has also stated that thereafter accused brought them near the bank of pond and produced the clothes of the lady which were worn by lady accused at the time of incident and hammer was also seized. He has identified signature on the panchnama as well as also identified muddamal articles produced in the matter. 28.1. He has been thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, however in such cross-examination he has adhered to the facts narrated by him in chief-examination. He has stated that the hair of Sejalben was cut by one lady constable. He has admitted that the clothes of both the accused were not seized in his presence. He has stated that he has no conversation with the accused nor the panch Nareshbhai had any conversation with the accused. He has stated that the hair of Sejalben was cut by one lady constable. He has admitted that the clothes of both the accused were not seized in his presence. He has stated that he has no conversation with the accused nor the panch Nareshbhai had any conversation with the accused. He has stated that C.P.I. Gamara has told him that he has interrogated both the accused and they have to go to village Vada for recovery of muddamal and for that purpose both of them have to remain as panch witness. He has stated that after informing them regarding primary panchnama, Police has obtained their signature. He has stated that when they reached at Village Vada, the room was having lock which was opened by the accused Jayendrabhai and he was with him. He has admitted that they have not asked as to how the key of the room was with Jayendrabhai. He has admitted that paijama, top and dupatta, these all the three clothes were found from the open field. 29. Prosecution witness-9, Rameshbhai Kabhaibhai Parmar, (Exhibit-57) who is a panch witness to drawing of signatures, handwriting of the accused Jayendrabhai has, in his evidence stated that Police has obtained total 36 signatures of accused Jayendrabhai vide panchnama and at that time other panch was Ganpatbhai Pratapbhai and they have made signature over the panchnama as well as specimen signatures. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has stated that when panchnama Exhibit 58 was prepared and signature from 59 to 64 of accused was obtained, Police has shown him the guest register of Hotel Champaner. 30. Prosecution witness-10, Padamsinh Dashrathsinh Rana, (Exhibit-65), who is a witness in whose presence entry no.1868 and 1869 was made in the register of Hotel Champaner vide Exhibit 8 and who is serving as a bell-boy at Hotel Champaner, in his evidence has stated that on 07.09.2010 at about 03.50 p.m. a man aged about 25 years and a lady about 22 years came to him and asked regarding availability of room. He has stated that the man told his name as Pinakin R.Patel, resident of Lunawada Road, Santrampur, District Panchmahal and he has narrated his mobile number and signed the register and the number of the tourist was mentioned as two in number. He has stated that thereafter he has allotted him, room no.101. He has stated that the man told his name as Pinakin R.Patel, resident of Lunawada Road, Santrampur, District Panchmahal and he has narrated his mobile number and signed the register and the number of the tourist was mentioned as two in number. He has stated that thereafter he has allotted him, room no.101. He has stated that after giving them water, towel and soap, he returned back to his duty on receptionist counter. He has also stated that on the same day, there were two tourists came in his hotel and name of one was Jayendrabhai Bachubhai Damor who has made entry in the register at serial no.1869 and put his signature. He has stated that room no.206 was was allotted to him. 30.1. He has also narrated that on 08.09.2010, watchman Ramabhai went to inform all the tourists regarding availability of hot water. He has stated that on 08.09.2010, the Hotel received keys of all the rooms except 101 and therefore, he informed manager Harisinh Barad. He has stated that thereafter, manager Harisinh, Nagrajbhai, Hirabhai Motibhai Patel, Rameshbhai Solanki, Ramabhai Tadvi went to room no.101 and tried to open the lock by duplicate key, but, it could not be opened, thereafter the lock was broken. He has stated that on opening the door it was found that there was a dead body of Pinakin Patel having blood stains and there were injury marks on his eyes as well as there were marks on the neck and the neck was roped with dupatta. He has stated that the pant and shirt were found on the table and the deceased was wearing half sleeve vest and underwear. He has also stated that there were two bottles found on the dressing table and one sandal was also found. He has stated that when room no.101 was allotted, there was one lady aged about 22 years and she was not found when they opened the door. He has stated that thereafter the manager informed the Police. He has identified the lady accused and the male accused. He has also identified various muddamal articles seized from room no.101. 30.2. During his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he has admitted that in both the entries at Exhibit 8 i.e. register, the number of persons are four but there is no specific mention as to how many male and female were there. He has also identified various muddamal articles seized from room no.101. 30.2. During his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he has admitted that in both the entries at Exhibit 8 i.e. register, the number of persons are four but there is no specific mention as to how many male and female were there. He has admitted that the entry no.1868, pertains to Pinakinbhai and there is mention regarding two persons, in that also there is no mention regarding the gender of the persons. He has also admitted that likewise in entry no.1869 which pertains to accused Jayendrabhai Damor there is no mention as to the gender of two persons. He has admitted that whenever any person comes to hotel for stay, they are asking for identity proof. He has stated that in all the entries from nos.1864 to 1869, the name of one person has been shown and identity proof of that fellow is obtained but no identity proof of other tourist who resided with him is obtained. He has admitted that he has not obtained the identity proof of the co-tourist of room no.101 which was allotted to Pinakinbhai. He has admitted that he has not narrated any description in respect of the lady accused Sejalben in his register. He has also admitted that likewise, in respect of the cotourist of Jayendra Damor, no such description is mentioned in entry no.1869. He has admitted that as per the entry no.1869, the tourist has checked-out at 07.15 a.m. on 08.09.2010 and key was deposited on reception counter. 30.3. He has admitted that he has sent watchman at 07.00 a.m. to room no.101 to inform that hot water is available and Ramabhai has told him that room no.101 is locked from inside. He has also admitted that when watchman went at 07.00 a.m. to 07.15 a.m. to room no.101, the room was locked from inside, but when five persons went at room no.101 at about 12.00 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. it was locked from outside. He has admitted that there is duplicate key available for each room and in respect of room no.101, they tried to open the lock with duplicate key but it could not be opened and therefore lock was broken down. He has admitted that as Jayendrabhai Damor has stayed in their hotel, he has identified him. He has admitted that there is duplicate key available for each room and in respect of room no.101, they tried to open the lock with duplicate key but it could not be opened and therefore lock was broken down. He has admitted that as Jayendrabhai Damor has stayed in their hotel, he has identified him. He has admitted that he has no personal knowledge as to what is the connection of Jayendrabhai with the death of deceased Pinakinbhai. He has admitted that there is no complete note made in the register at Exhibit 8. 31. Prosecution witness-11, Ramabhai Bhimabhai Tadavi (Exhibit-66) who is a witness serving as a watchman at hotel champaner and who was asked to inform tourist regarding availability of hot water, in his deposition has stated that on the date of incident, he visited total 16 to 17 rooms and informed regarding availability of hot water and at that time, knocked the door of room no.101 and he did not verified as to whether there was lock over it or not. He has stated that he has informed Padamsinh that there is voice of television in room no.101 and he has informed all tourists regarding availability of hot water and thereafter as his duty was over, he left for his residence. He has stated that on the same day at about 12.00 to 12.30 he was called at hotel and along with other persons he went to room no.101 where there was dead body. He has identified the muddamal articles and stated that clothes were found from room no.101. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that he has been allotted Government Quarters in the compound of Hotel Champaner and on 07.09.2010 and 08.09.2010 at night he was on duty and during that period he has not left the hotel at night. He has admitted that there are 32 rooms in Hotel Champaner. 32. Prosecution witness-12, Ramanbhai Mohanbhai, (Exhibit-69), who is first panch witness to test identification parade, panchnama (Exhibit-70), in his deposition has supported the version of the prosecution and has stated that on 21.09.2010, he was called in Mamlatdar Office by the Mamlatdar to remain as panch in identification parade and at that time Rajubhai Parmar was with him. 32. Prosecution witness-12, Ramanbhai Mohanbhai, (Exhibit-69), who is first panch witness to test identification parade, panchnama (Exhibit-70), in his deposition has supported the version of the prosecution and has stated that on 21.09.2010, he was called in Mamlatdar Office by the Mamlatdar to remain as panch in identification parade and at that time Rajubhai Parmar was with him. He has stated that mamlatdar has called both of them and thereafter other four persons were called and door as well as windows were got closed. He has stated that thereafter accused was called and door was closed. He has stated that mamlatdar Panchal has informed the accused if he want to make changes in his hair style or to change his clothes, but at that time, accused Jayendrabhai denied to do so and at that time, accused Sejalben was also there. He has stated that both the accused were brought with covered faces closed with burkha. He has stated that thereafter, one Hareshbhai was called through peon by mamlatdar Mr.Panchal and Hareshbhai has identified accused Jayendrabhai. Likewise, Hareshbhai has also identification Sejalben. He has stated that panchnama was prepared by the mamlatdar and thereafter both panchas have signed it. 32.1. During his cross-examination he has admitted that the accused were brought in the office of the mamlatdar in a position that their faces were covered with burkha. He has stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding the other dummy persons who were there in a identification parade. He has stated that there is no description made in the panchnama regarding the dummy persons, nor there is mention regarding the description of both the panchas. He has also admitted that there is also no narration made in the panchnama regarding the description of both the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that he is the man of Police. He has denied the suggestion that he has not taken part in the identification parade and has merely signed the ready made panchnama. 33. Prosecution witness-13, Rajubhai Hirabhai Parmar, (Exhibit-71), who is 2nd panch witness to test identification parade of panchnama 70, in his evidence has supported the version of the prosecution and has narrated that both the accused were identified by Hareshbhai in their presence. 34. 33. Prosecution witness-13, Rajubhai Hirabhai Parmar, (Exhibit-71), who is 2nd panch witness to test identification parade of panchnama 70, in his evidence has supported the version of the prosecution and has narrated that both the accused were identified by Hareshbhai in their presence. 34. Prosecution witness-14, Mahendrasinh Shankarlal Panchal, (Exhibit-72), who is mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate in whose presence test identification parade panchnama was carried out of both the accused as on 21.09.2010, has deposed that at the relevant point of time he was mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate and he has carried out the test identification parade of both the accused in presence of panchas and dummy witnesses and both the accused have been identified by the concerned persons. He has stated that both the accused were brought before him covering their faces with burkha. He has narrated the entire sequence of the events which are narrated in the test identification parade. He has also stated that he has informed both the accused to change their haristyle or clothes if they want to do so, but, they have denied the same. 34.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that he has vast experience of conducting test identification parade. He has admitted that he has not sent any yadi to complainant Harisinh to remain present in the test identification parade nor he has informed witness Padamsinh Rana. He has admitted that witness Padamsinh Darshansinh Rana has directly met him in his chamber who has told him that he can identify the person as he has earlier seen him. He has stated that accused Jayendrasinh was brought by PSI Barad along with his Police Constable and after receiving the accused from the Police, the accused was kept in record room. He has stated that thereafter, he went for search of dummy persons and within five to ten minutes four dummy persons were brought. He has admitted that dummy persons were also brought in the record room where the accused Jayendrasinh was kept. He has stated that he has not mentioned regarding the inquiry of the dummy persons in record room in the panchnama. He has stated that after inquiry with the accused, he brought accused as well as four dummy persons and the staff members in his chamber. He has admitted that he brought all of them with uncovered face. He has stated that he has not mentioned regarding the inquiry of the dummy persons in record room in the panchnama. He has stated that after inquiry with the accused, he brought accused as well as four dummy persons and the staff members in his chamber. He has admitted that he brought all of them with uncovered face. He has admitted that he has not seized the burkha which was worn by both the accused. He has also admitted that he has not narrated the description of the clothes of the accused as well as description of the clothes of the dummy persons. He has also admitted that he has even not mentioned the height of the suspects and the dummy persons. 35. Prosecution witness-15, Rameshbhai Maganbhai Solanki, (Exhibit-75), who was working at the relevant time in hotel champaner and was a part of a team who broke the lock of room no.101, in his evidence has supported the version of the prosecution regarding the breaking over the lock of room no.101 and having found dead body of the deceased and recovery of muddamal and the condition of the dead body. During his cross-examination he has admitted that the lock which was there on the door of room no.101 was tried to be opened with duplicate key but it was not opened. It was stated that he has no information as to whether the Police has seized duplicate key or not. He has admitted that when they entered in the room no.101, there were two bottles in the room no.101 and the same are not shown to him during the course of his deposition. 36. Prosecution witnesses-16, Ratilalbhai Nanalal Kalal, (Exhibit-76), who is uncle of the deceased has stated that he received phone call from his brother Umeshbhai that there is murder of Pinakin in the hotel and therefore, he along with his son and brother went to the hotel and at that time, dead body was already referred to the Hospital where he seen that his nephew Pinakin has injury over his head. Thus, he has no knowledge regarding the incident. 37. Thus, he has no knowledge regarding the incident. 37. Prosecution witness-17, Rameshchandra Nanalal Patel, (Exhibit-77), who is the father of the deceased has deposed that his deceased son was studying in M.S. University, Baroda and on 08.09.2010 when he was in his residence, he received message from santrampur Police Station that his son Pinakin has died in a Hotel. He stated that therefore he went along with his brothers and at that time, dead body of Pinakin was referred to Civil Hospital and at that time there was serious injury over his head. He has narrated that the Police has informed him regarding the incident. He has identified the watch of his son Pinakin. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that he got knowledge of the incident from Santrampur Police. He has admitted that from Halol referral hospital, they went to Vadodara Hostel, where his son was staying and they met watchman as well as manager Dhirajlal Fulchand Shah and at that time, room of Pinakin was locked. He has stated that in the presence of watchman and hostel manager, the lock was broken and two sim cards were found. He has admitted that, he came to know regarding disappearance of his son Pinakin from hostel watchman and the manager. He has admitted that the accused were shown to him earlier by the Police and therefore on that basis he has identified them. 38. Prosecution witness-18, Nagraj Morebhai Goda, (Exhibit-78) has supported the version of the prosecution regarding the breaking of the lock of room no.101 and seize of various muddamal as he was one of the persons accompanying manager and other persons. 39. Prosecution witness-19, Hirabhai Motibhai, (Exhibit-78) in his evidence has stated that he is serving in Hotel as a waiter and Padamsinh Rana has informed him regarding the murder of Pinakin in room no.101. He has stated that he has seen the dead body from outside. He has admitted that he has not seen personally that deceased Pinakin has come with any lady in Hotel. 40. Prosecution witness-20, Dhirajkumar Manojchand Shah, (Exhibit-80) in his deposition has stated that deceased Pinakin was residing in boys hostel where he was a manager. He has stated that on 07.09.2010 i.e. Tuesday, Pinakin came in his hotel at 12.45 for lunch. 40. Prosecution witness-20, Dhirajkumar Manojchand Shah, (Exhibit-80) in his deposition has stated that deceased Pinakin was residing in boys hostel where he was a manager. He has stated that on 07.09.2010 i.e. Tuesday, Pinakin came in his hotel at 12.45 for lunch. He has stated that they are marking presence of a persons who come to take lunch and dinner in their hostel and accordingly he has marked presence of Pinakin. He has stated that one Naitik Gandhi was also with him but he did not take lunch. He has stated that on the same evening neither Pinakin nor Naitik Gandhi came to take dinner. He stated that Chintan was ill and therefore he went to his native place. 40.1. He has stated that on 09.09.2010, at about 04.30 to 05.00 a.m. night watchman Sujansinh came to him and informed that Pinakin’s father Rameshbhai along with seven persons have came there for search of Pinakin. He has stated that they have told him that Pinakin is missing. He has stated that thereafter they went to the room of Pinakin which was locked and the lock was broken and the room was searched and thereafter from the cupboard sim card and mobile was taken out. He has stated that on the next day, Rinkesh Rayani who was staying in room no.53 told him that on 07.09.2010, he has dropped Pinakin at S.T.Depot in the afternoon. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge as to what other articles were taken out from the room by the persons who came there. 41. Prosecution witness-21, Prakashchandra Narandas Patel, (exhibit-84), in his evidence has stated that he got the information on 08.09.2010 on telephone that Pinakin has been murdered in the tourism cottage at Pawagadh. He has stated that the Police has informed him that deceased Pinakin stayed in room no.101 with one lady. During his cross-examination he has admitted that P.S.I. has told him that Pinakin stayed with Sejal in the hotel. 42. Prosecution witness-22, Vasantlal Nanalal Talati, (Exhibit-87) who is uncle of the deceased has also stated that Police has informed him regarding the facts that the deceased Pinakin had stayed with Sejal in hotel in room no.101 and Pinakin was murdered. 43. Prosecution witness-23, Arvindkumar Nanalal Kalak, (Exhibit-88) in his evidence has stated that he was informed regarding the death of his nephew Mr.Pinakin. 44. 43. Prosecution witness-23, Arvindkumar Nanalal Kalak, (Exhibit-88) in his evidence has stated that he was informed regarding the death of his nephew Mr.Pinakin. 44. Prosecution witness-24, Chandubhai Nagjibhai Parghi, (Exhibit-90) who is Scientific Officer having prepared FSL report Exhibit 98 and collected samples from room no.101, has stated the factum of seize of muddamal from scene of offence i.e. room no.101 and preparation of primary report by him of the visit of the place as he is a Scientific Officer. He has admitted in his cross-examination that when he has prepared the report, Pawagadh Police was present on the place of occurrence and prior to preparation of the report the inquest panchanama of the dead body was already carried out by the Police. He has admitted that he has not instructed to obtain finger prints of the deceased. He has admitted that he has not mentioned the liquid found in two bottles in his report. He has stated that as both the bottles were plastic made the finger prints may or may not be possible to be obtained from them. 45. Prosecution witness-25, Ishanbhai Hasmukhbhai Savaliya, (Exhibit-92) who is a student and staying with the adjoining room of hostel where deceased Pinakin was residing in room no.51 whereas deceased Pinakin was residing in room no.43 and Mr.Dipalbhai was residing in room no.48 of the boys hostel. He has stated that deceased Pinakin was his friend and friendship has started just one month back and they three were going together for taking lunch and dinner and for purchasing any articles. He has stated that Police has informed regarding the incident in question that deceased has died in room no.101. He has stated that on 07.09.2010 at about 01.25p.m. to 01.30 p.m., there was telephone call received by him from Pinakin and he has told him that as and when he reach the hostel, to inform Pinakin. The witness has stated that he reached hostel at 02.00 p.m. and at that time he called Pinakin and Pinakin told him that he left hostel but did not inform as to where he is going. He has stated that on the same day at 08.00 p.m. in night he called Pinakin but his phone was switched off thereafter he did not tried to call Pinakin. 45.1. He has stated that on the same day at 08.00 p.m. in night he called Pinakin but his phone was switched off thereafter he did not tried to call Pinakin. 45.1. During his cross-examination he has stated that in his presence room of Pinakin was searched by Dhirajbhai and others and he did not know as to how many items they have taken from the room. 46. It reveals from the evidence of prosecution witness PW-26 Dipal Bharatkumar Gandhi (Exh-93), who is a student and a friend of deceased student in adjoining room no. 48 of Sir Sayaji Rao Diamond Jubilee Boys Hostel. As the deceased was residing in Room No.43 of the hostel and he was friend of the witness, he has stated that Naitik and Chintan were two room partners of deceased Pinakin and once deceased Pinakin had told him that he had love affair with one girl Sejal who is a student in Rajkot and she is resident of Dahod. He has stated that he was ill from 3.9.2010 and had had gone to his native Bharuch and his treatment was goind on till 9.9.2010. he has stated that he got information of the incident from the newspaper dated 9.9.2010 and at that time Pinakin’s elder brother asked him about Pinakin. The witness has stated that he does not know regarding murder of the deceased. He has stated that Mr. Rinkesh told him that he had dropped Pinakin at Bus-stand. 46.1. During his cross-examination, he has revealed that he has not seen Sejal. He has admitted that he has narrated before the Police that the deceased has also love-affair with sister of one of his friends. 47. It reveals from the evidence of prosecution witness -27, Kartavya Navinchandra Vyas, (Exh-94) who is a witness having called the deceased at around 4 p.m. on 7.9.2010 and the deceased had informed him that he is at Halol and will return back to Vadodara by evening. He came to know regarding the incident of deceased Pinakin from Pinakin’s father. He has stated that as he had to perform religious ceremony “Kalsarp” to bring flowers, he had telephoned the deceased Pinakin on 7.9.2010 at 4.00 p.m. to bring flowers and at that time Pinakin told him that he is at Halol with on friend and will return back in the evening. He has stated that as he had to perform religious ceremony “Kalsarp” to bring flowers, he had telephoned the deceased Pinakin on 7.9.2010 at 4.00 p.m. to bring flowers and at that time Pinakin told him that he is at Halol with on friend and will return back in the evening. He has stated that on the next day i.e. on 8.9.2010, when he told Pinakin on his mobile, the Mobile of Pinakin was found switched-off. He has stated that he came to know regarding the incident of Pinakin from newspaper dated 9.9.2010. 47.1. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that Pinakin has not informed the name of his friend who was with him at Halol. He stated that the Police has not recovered his telephone. 48. It reveals from the evidence of Prosecution Witness Rinkesh Jayendrabhai Rayani PW-28, at Exh-95 that he is a student who was staying in the adjoining room No. 43 and who had gone to drop the deceased at Vadodara S.T. Depot on 7.9.2010 as Pinakin had called him on Mobile and told him to drop him at S.T. Depot if he is free. He has stated that at that time he had asked him as to where he is going and at that time he told him that he is going to meet his friend. According to this witness, therefore, he dropped Pinakin on his bike at S.T. Depot, Vadodara. 48.1. During his cross-examination, he has stated that as he does not know whether Pinakin was wearing any wrist-watch when he dropped him at S.T. Depot, Vadodara. 49. From the evidence of prosecution witness Govindbhai Kanubhai Ninama, PW-29 (At Exh-96), it reveals that initially he has stated that at the time of incident he was studying in PTC College at village Veda and Rakesh Ramesh Babariay, Jayenderabhai Bachubhai and the witness were staying in one room and were studying together. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, he has been declared as hostile by the prosecution and he has been thoroughly cross-examined on the facts narrated by him before the Police. In such cross-examination , he has admitted that he has narrated before the Police on 6.9.2010 of all of us three had gone to sleep and he and Rakesh woke up at 8.00 am and at that time Jayendrabhai was not in room. In such cross-examination , he has admitted that he has narrated before the Police on 6.9.2010 of all of us three had gone to sleep and he and Rakesh woke up at 8.00 am and at that time Jayendrabhai was not in room. However, the next moment he has stated that he did not narrate this fact before the Police. 49.1. During the cross-examination of the accused, he has admitted that the Police has only asked his nake and address and has not read over his statement and he has no personal knowledge regarding the incident in question. 50. It reveals from the evidence of Prosecution witness Bharat Amratlal Patel PW- 30 (At Exh-97) that he is shop owner from whom Poision was alleged to be purchased by the accused Jayendrabhai. He has stated that one fellow came at about 9-9.30 at his shop and demanded Chlorophyriphos Dhanvan-20 and after receiving payment of Rs.60, he has given the bottle to the said person and before he could give him bill, he went away. He has stated that during investigation his statement was recorded by the Police and at that time he had given the copy of licence to the Police. 50.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that the person has asked for the medicine Chloroform. When asked regarding the difference in Chloroform and Chlorophyriphos Dhanvan- 20, he has stated that Chloroform is a technical name while Dhanvan is the Company’s brand name. He has admitted that he is keeping Bill Book and paying Sales-tax. He has admitted that no bill was produced before the Police. He has admitted that when his statement was recorded, the accused was with the Police in Mansa Police Station. He has admitted that no identification parade was carried before the Executive Magistrate through him. 51. It reveals from the evidence of Prosecution witness Rakeshbhai Rameshbhai Baberiya, PW-31 at Exh- 104, has not supported the version of the prosecution regarding the incident. However, he has stated that he was studying in PTC College at village Veda and he, Jayendrabhai and Govindbhai were residing in one room. He has stated that after the festival, he and Jayendrabhai returned back and at that time nobody was accompanying Jayendrabhai. He has stated that he does not know as to after 2 days where did Jayendrabhai went. He has stated that after the festival, he and Jayendrabhai returned back and at that time nobody was accompanying Jayendrabhai. He has stated that he does not know as to after 2 days where did Jayendrabhai went. Further, he has stated that after two days, Jayendrabhai returned back along with on girl Sejal with him. He has stated that Jayendrabhai and Sejal were staying with them for 2 to 3 days and thereafter they left. 52. From the evidence of prosecution witness Bhanuben Gunvantbahi, PW-32, at Exh-106, it is revealed that she is residing at village Veda and has two housed at Veda and she has rented one house to Jayendrabhai wherein along with Jayendrabhai, Govind and Rakeshbhia were also residing. She has stated that on 3.9.2010, Jayendrabhai demanded hammer from her and thereafter on the same day returned it back. She has stated that as there were clother hanging for drying, which included dupatta, she asked Jayendrabhai about the same and she was told that it is his wife’s clothes. She has stated that she has not seen both of them and at that time the Police showed her the said lady. She has stated that on 9th she had handed over the said Hammer to the Police. 52.1. During her cross-examination, he has admitted that when she had given hammer, no panchnama was prepared by the Police his place and when Jayendrabhia returned it back, at that relevant point of time, she did not find anything suspicious on it. 53. It reveals from the evidence of Rajubhai Premchand Bhuria PW-33, at Exh-107, that he is the fellow who had accompanied and stayed with the accused at Hotel Champaner on the night of incident. He has narrated the sequence as to how he and Jayendrabhai met in bus and upon reaching there, watched TV in the Hotel. He has stated that he was watching TV whereas Jayendrabhai was sitting outside and within short time, Jayendrabhai came to him and told him that he is going to garden. He has stated that thereafter Jayendrabhai changed his clother and wore Black Shirt and narrow pant, he and Jayendrabhai went for Dinner. He has stated that thereafter they came back to the room and woke-up at 5.00 in the morning. He has stated that when he woke-up at 5.00 in the morning, no other person was in his room. He has stated that thereafter Jayendrabhai changed his clother and wore Black Shirt and narrow pant, he and Jayendrabhai went for Dinner. He has stated that thereafter they came back to the room and woke-up at 5.00 in the morning. He has stated that when he woke-up at 5.00 in the morning, no other person was in his room. According to him, at the time of going to sleep, Jayendrabhai was with him. He has stated that after 20 days, the Police came to him and he does not know regarding the incident. 54.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accuse, the fact of his Police statement is brought on record wherein he has stated that he woke-up in the morning, Jayendrabhai had also awakened. He has also admitted that he has stated before the Police that after taking bath at about 7 a.m. after locking the Hotel room, key was returned to the Hotel and both reached Manchi bus-stand. He has admitted that when he stayed in the Hotel with Jayendrabhai, his name was asked by the Hotel man and he had given his name as his address was not narrated. He has stated that he has not paid any rent to the Hotel. He has admitted that the incident had happened on the same Night on which he resided in the Hotel. He has admitted that in the Register at Exh-8, his name has been shown as Raju. He has admitted that on the next day, after locking the room, the key was given at the counter of the Hotel and they left. 55. It reveals from the evidence of prosecution witness Mr. Tejendrakumar Mahendrabhai Patel, PW-34, at Exh-109, that he is the Principal of G.B.Rao PTC Collect at Village Veda where accused Jayendrabhai was studying in 2010. During his deposition the factum of Jayendrabhai being student of this College as well as the period of absence in September, 2010 has been brought on record. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that accused Sejalben is not studying in his College. 56. During his deposition the factum of Jayendrabhai being student of this College as well as the period of absence in September, 2010 has been brought on record. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that accused Sejalben is not studying in his College. 56. It is revealed from prosecution witness Gordhanbhai Somabhai, PW- 35, at Exh-111, in his deposition has stated that on 8.10.2010 he was serving as PSO at Pavagadh Police Station and at that time the FIR was placed before him and accordingly he has made entry in the Register and thereafter handed it over for investigation to PSI, V.M. Tank. He has admitted that the FIR was not recorded before him. 57. From the evidence of prosecution witness Madhuben Lakhabhai PW-36, at Exh-112, it is revealed that on 9.9.2010, the clothes of the deceased which were produced by the Police Constable Marutisinh Bhimsinh, were seized by drawing panchnama. She has stated that the articles include Odhani (Dupatta), inner wear, banian. She has admitted that all the clothes were produced in open condition. 58. It is revealed from the evidence of Kashyapbhai Kanaiyalal Pancholi, PW-37, at Exh-114 that he was incharge Principal of H.N.Shukla PTC College, Rajkot. He has produced the presence sheet in respect of the accused Sejalben for the month of September, 2010. He has stated that on 6.9.2010, Sejalben was absent. He has identified the accused Sejalpben. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that on 7.9.2010, there was a guest-pass issued wherein Sejalben baberiya had got permission from the College and as she was permitted to go to her native place on 7.9.2010 at 7.10. a.m. He has admitted that students are seeking leave for various reasons. 59. It reveals from the evidence of Prosecution witness Vikramsinh Madhavsinh Tank, PW-38, at Exh- 120, that he is first Investigating officer who was working as PSI in Pavagadh Police Station at the relevant time. During his Chief-examination, he has narrated the entire facts and the investigation which he has carried out which include seizure of muddamal by drawing panchnama of the scene of offence. He has also produced various documentary evidence regarding the call-details as well as the Post-mortem Report, inquest panchnama, etc. 59.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that after writing of the FIR by his writer, he had sent it for registration of the offence. He has also produced various documentary evidence regarding the call-details as well as the Post-mortem Report, inquest panchnama, etc. 59.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that after writing of the FIR by his writer, he had sent it for registration of the offence. He has admitted that there was no specific name of the accused mentioned in the FIR and there is no specific mention as to when the incident has really happened, as to whether it happened in day or at night. He has stated that no videography or photography was carried of the Room No. 101. He has stated that during the course of inquest panchnama, FSL Officer came at the place. He has admitted that during the Panchnama of scene of offence, two bottles were found where there was some liquid in both the bottles and he as not obtained any information as to the finger prints of the person who used the said bottles. He has admitted that even he has not obtained fingerprints of the deceased. He has admitted that as per register in the Room No. 101, there is mention of two tourist but no gender has been shown and in the same way, in respect of Entry No. 1869, there is mention of two males. 60. It reveals from the evidence of prosecution witness Velabhia Arjunbhai Gamara, PW-128, at Exh-39, that he has carried out the investigation of the incident after taking investigation from PSI Mr. Tank. According to this witness, during the investigation he has searched the Mobile number and during that search it was found that there was frequent phone-calls from one sim. On inquiry, it was found that the Sim belonged to Ratansinh Vajesinh Baria, resident of Dadur Patel Falia and, therefore, he went there and at that time Ratansinh told him that the same is being used by is daughter Sejal, who is studying in PTC College, Rajkot. He has stated that during his investigation, Sejalben told that she is coming there. According to him, during investigation it was found that both these two accused have committed the murder of the deceased. He has stated that thereafter both the accused were arrested by Panchnama and at the instance of the accused, discovery panchnama was carried out at village Veda from where clothes of the lady accused, wrist watch of the deceased, hammer, etc. He has stated that thereafter both the accused were arrested by Panchnama and at the instance of the accused, discovery panchnama was carried out at village Veda from where clothes of the lady accused, wrist watch of the deceased, hammer, etc. were seized. During his examination, the statement of the hostile witness came to be proved. He has stated that thereafter investigation was handed over to PSI V.B. Barad. 60.1. During his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he has admitted that when the investigation was with PI, there was no allegation against the present accused. He has admitted that when he received the investigation, there was no case of any robbery. He has admitted that he has not investigated on the poinst as to the ownership of the Dupatta, which was found from teh date body of the deceased Pinakin. He has stated that hair were found from the room. He has stated that he has sent it to the FSL to find as to it belongs to male or female. He has stated that till he handed over the investigation, he did not get FSL Report. He has specifically stated that motive of the crime was love affair. He was specifically asked as to whether he has got any documentary evidence in support of the motive of love affair, he has stated that during investigation he has obtained call details of all the three and on inquiry from the accused, it was revealed that the calls were made by the accused and on that basis, he has inferred that it was a love affair. He has admitted that during the investigation, no hand-set name of Sejalben was found. He has stated that during investigation he has recorded statement of Ratansinh. He has admitted that he has not got Voice-spectography Test in respect of the call details. He has admitted that he has not got any documentary evidence in respect of love triangle. 60.2. He has stated that initially he, accused Sejalben and her father Ratansinh Vajesinh Baria went to village Veda on 15.9.2010 and at that time there were 3 boys namely Govindbhai, Jayendrabhai and Rakeshbhai. He has stated that at that time upon inquiry, Sejalben identified Jayendrabhai. He has stated that thereafter he brought all the three boys to Pavagadh and at that time, the room was locked and key was kept with him. He has stated that at that time upon inquiry, Sejalben identified Jayendrabhai. He has stated that thereafter he brought all the three boys to Pavagadh and at that time, the room was locked and key was kept with him. He has stated that he has not searched Govindbhai and Rakeshbhai and no search was carried out in the said room at that time. He has admitted that during his investigation it was found that all the three boys were residing in the same room. 60.3. He has admitted that on 15.9.2010, he has not recorded the statement of owner of the room and he inquired that at that time the lady owner had not told regarding the hammer. He has stated that on 19.9.2020 Panchanam under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was drawn and prior to that, he has already visited village Veda. He has stated that certain muddamal articles were found from the open land on the bank of the Pond, which he has seized as per the Panchnama. He has admitted that he has not investigated as to where actually was the crime conspiracy hatched. He has admitted that there is no specific entry made in the Register as to the Gender of the person who accompanied the deceased Pinakin in Room No. 101. He has admitted that he has not found any evidence to suggest that on the date of incident, accused Jayendrabhai had gone to Room No. 101 and stayed there. He has admitted that he has visited the place of incident and has not found any material involving the accsued for the alleged crime. He has admitted that he has not investigated the finger print from the two plastice bottles which were seized from Room No. 101. 61. It reveals from the evidence of Prosecution Witness-40 Vijaybhai Babubhai Barad (Exhibit-133) that he is Police Inspector at Pawagadh Police Station and who is the last Investigating Officer and has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. He has stated that he has carried out the investigation after getting it from Circle Inspector Mr.Gamara and got the necessary muddamal being analyzed by the FSL and as there was sufficient evidence, he has filed charge-sheet. He has produced documentary evidence which includes FSL report etc. He has stated that he has carried out the investigation after getting it from Circle Inspector Mr.Gamara and got the necessary muddamal being analyzed by the FSL and as there was sufficient evidence, he has filed charge-sheet. He has produced documentary evidence which includes FSL report etc. During his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he has admitted that when he has sent accused for test identification parade before the Executive Magistrate, he has not mentioned the description of the accused which includes height, size and dress. He has admitted that there was no any note mentioned in the register of hotel as to who was accompanying deceased Pinakin. He has admitted that during his investigation it was found that along with the accused Jayendrabhai there was somebody else also stayed with him in the hotel. He has admitted that he has not found any evidence suggesting that accused Jayendrabhai has left his room of hotel and went in the room of deceased Pinakin. He has admitted that except the statement of the witness, he has not got any evidence suggesting that at the time of incident Sejalben was staying with Pinakin. He has admitted that he has not got any particulars regarding the description of Sejalben from the statement of the witness. HE has denied the suggestion that the panchnama at Exhibit-5 and 58 were readymade and it was not drawn as per the version of the panchas and signature of the panchas were obtained on readymade panchnama. He has denied the suggestion that there was no evidence against the accused and he had filed the false charge-sheet. 62. On appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, it clearly reveals that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The facts emerges from the evidence on record, reveals that so far as the presence of the accused Jayendrabhai at Champaner Hotel is concerned, is clearly proved from the evidence of receptionist as well as the evidence of witness Rajubhai Premchandbhai Bhuria (Exhibit 107). The copy of the hotel register wherein accused Jayendra has put his signature is also proved by the evidence of receptionist. The copy of the hotel register wherein accused Jayendra has put his signature is also proved by the evidence of receptionist. It is pertinent to note that the factum of obtaining hand writing, signature of accused Jayendra is also put by the evidence of the panch witness as well as the factum that in the further statement under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure, accused has admitted regarding providing his specimen signature as per the panchnama. 63. Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for reports of certain Government Scientific experts which may be used as evidence in any inquiry, Trial or other proceedings under the Code. The provision reads under Section 293 as under :- “293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.—(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. (3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court, and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf. (4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely :— (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; [(b) the Chief Controller of Explosives;] (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director 1 [,Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; (f) the Serologist to the Government; [(g) any other Government scientific expert specified, by notification, by the Central Government for this purpose.]-” 64. In view of the above provisions, the Court can accept the documents issued by any of the aforesaid officers, who were mentioned in Section 293 as valid evidence without examining the author thereof. In view of the above provisions, the Court can accept the documents issued by any of the aforesaid officers, who were mentioned in Section 293 as valid evidence without examining the author thereof. The defence has submitted that the hand writing expert reports in question cannot be used as evidence and it was necessary for the prosecution to examine the author of the report, however, on perusal of hand writing expert’s report at exhibit 108 which clearly comes within the purview of Section 293 of the Code. At the same time, the provisions of Section 294 of the Code is also needs to be taken into consideration, which provides as under:- “294. No formal proof of certain documents.— (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” 65. Now, considering the aforesaid provisions coupled with the material placed on record, in the present case, the report of the hand writing expert can be used against the accused. Thus, the presence of the accused Jayendra on the date of the incident in Hotel Champaner is proved. 66. A conspiracy is always hatched in a secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence of criminal conspiracy can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal commission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of common design. There may not be direct evidence of conspiracy. The conspiracy can seldomly proved by means of direct evidence and has, almost invariably to be inferred from circumstantial evidence consisting generally of evidence as to the conduct of the parties on certain occasions and in relation to certain matters. There may not be direct evidence of conspiracy. The conspiracy can seldomly proved by means of direct evidence and has, almost invariably to be inferred from circumstantial evidence consisting generally of evidence as to the conduct of the parties on certain occasions and in relation to certain matters. Now, admittedly, in this case, though there is no direct evidence regarding hatching of conspiracy of murder of the deceased by the present accused, however, considering the overall evidence on record, it clearly suggest that the deceased was called by the lady accused and she accompanied the deceased in Hotel and at the same time, the male accused has also occupied one of the rooms of the Hotel and thereafter they both have committed the offence. Not only that, it also reveals that the accused Jayendrabhai has identified the lady accused as his wife before the land-lady. Under the circumstances, the submission of the defendants that there is no direct evidence as to criminal conspiracy as well as regarding motive, is not acceptable. 67. Now, regarding the presence of accused Sejalben in the Hotel Champaner is concerned, the prosecution’s case is based upon the version of the receptionist who was attending the reception counter at the relevant time i.e. Padamsinh Darjansinh Rana, (Exhibit 65), as well as on the evidence of In-charge Principal of H.N.Shukla P.T.C. College at Rajkot to suggest that on the date of incident Sejal had left the College after obtaining permission. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of friends of the deceased to suggest that the deceased has informed that he was having love with the present accused Sejal who is studying at Rajkot and she belongs to Rajkot. Now, considering the evidence on record, it clearly appears that the first person who has seen the lady accused with Pinakin is Padamsinh Darsansinh Rana (Exhibit 65), who has clearly supported the case of the prosecution. Further, as per the evidence of the In-charge Principal of the H.N.Shukla P.T.C.College at Rajkot, Mr.Kashyapbhai Kanaiyalal Pancholi (Exhibit 114) that on 07.09.2010 in early morning at 06.10, Sejal has left the College after obtaining permission. 67.1. It also reveals that as per the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, lady accused also has been identified by the Padamsinh Darsansinh Rana in test identification parade. The panch witnesses of the test identification parade have also supported the said facts. 67.2. 67.1. It also reveals that as per the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, lady accused also has been identified by the Padamsinh Darsansinh Rana in test identification parade. The panch witnesses of the test identification parade have also supported the said facts. 67.2. It also reveals from the evidence of Bhanuben Gunvantrai (Exhibit 106) who is the owner of the room, wherein Jayendra along with other two persons at village Vada were residing, has clearly supported the case of the prosecution that the accused was staying in a rented house. This witness has clearly stated in her evidence that the present lady accused was also with Jayendra in her house and she was shown by the Police to her and the accused Jayendra has identified her as his wife. 67.3. At the same time, though the witness Govindbhai Kanubhai Ninama (Exhibit 96) and Rakeshbhai Rameshbhai Baberia (Exhibit 104) came to be declared as hostile, the facts of Jayendra residing with them and accused Sejal came to reside with them has not been challenged by the defence. 67.4. It also reveals from the evidence of Investigating Officer that on the basis of investigation of various phone calls, received by the deceased, the sim card came to be found as of father of the lady accused and on investigation, it was found that it was being used by the lady accused. The prosecution has relied upon the details of the CDR. Of course, no certificate under the provisions of Evidence Act has been produced. However, that evidence is discarded, the narration of the Investigating Officer regarding use of the sim card of her father by the lady accused has not been challenged. Moreover, the factum of preparation of panchnama of scene of offence in room no.101 is also established. On perusal of the same, it is found that lady hair has been found from the bed and the specimen hair of the accused collected by the prosecution for investigation which was sent to the FSL tallies with the same. Thus, all these evidence clearly establishes the fact that on the date of incident, lady accused was accompanying Pinakin. 68. It also appears from the evidence that Pinakin has left Vadodara Hostel and he has reached Chmpaner Hotel, his dead body was also found from the room no.101 of the Hotel Champaner. Thus, all these evidence clearly establishes the fact that on the date of incident, lady accused was accompanying Pinakin. 68. It also appears from the evidence that Pinakin has left Vadodara Hostel and he has reached Chmpaner Hotel, his dead body was also found from the room no.101 of the Hotel Champaner. It is undisputed facts that the dead body found in room no.101 was of the deceased Pinakin. Thus, the factum of presence of both the accused and the deceased Pinakin on the date of incident in the Hotel champaner is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 68.1. It is also pertinent to note that the clothes of the lady accused as well as wrist watch of the deceased and the broken key of room no.101 has been recovered at the instance of the accused, as per panchnama drawn under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The panch witness of the said panchnama has clearly supported the case of the prosecution regarding discovery of those materials. Of course there is some lacuna regarding the hammer. However, considering the material placed on record, it clearly establishes that the hammer was taken by the accused from land owner. There is some discrepancies of taking the hammer from the land owner and returning it back to her. 69. On considering the entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, it clearly appears that the Trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in convicting the accused and passing the sentence upon them. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the Trial Court. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not require any interference, hence the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, both these appeals are dismissed.