JUDGMENT Prakash Chandra Gupta, J. - This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1438/2010 and Criminal No.2147/2010. Since the court below passed the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2010, which are arising of the same incident, on the joint request of the parties, these appeals were analogously heard and decided by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 28.06.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.619/2009 passed by IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The Court below convicted the appellants under section 302/120-B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation to each of the appellants. 3. The prosecution story in nutshell is that one Sadaram (PW-14) gave intimation on 04.07.2009 to Police Station Pipalani, District Bhopal that one person is found dead near Dushehra ground and the dead body is full of blood, on this marg intimation (Ex.P/25) was registered. SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) on the same day i.e. 04.07.2009 at 8.30 am proceeded to the spot for the verification of the aforesaid intimation and found that a dead body was lying on Dushehra ground, in front of Akashwani Centre Jamboori. Pooran Singh (PW-5) identified that the body is of deceased Ramratan in presence of witnesses Sadaram (PW-14) and Achchhelal (PW-6). R.R. Bansal (PW-18) prepared Shinakhtagi Panchnama (Ex.P/13). R.R. Bansal (PW-18) after giving notice (Ex.P/10) prepared panchnama Lash (Ex. P/9). He also found that there are many cut injuries on the body of the deceased Ramratan. Therefore, he lodged a Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/29) at 09.15 am against unknown person and on the basis of the same he also lodged an FIR (Ex.P/27) on the same day at around 10 am against an unknown person. 4. During investigation on 04.07.2009, at 11 am at the instance of Sadaram (PW-14), R.R. Bansal (PW-18) prepared spot map (Ex.P/14) at 11.10 am. He seized a pair of blood stained sleeper of the deceased, one was worn by him in his right foot and another was lying near his head, one receipt of Patna Tent House, a purse of brown colour containing Rs.1,500/- and one more receipt, two bandeds, a cycle key and a diary from the pocket of his pant and prepared a seizure memo (Ex. P/15). P/15). At 11.20 am, he seized three water pouches, two disposal glasses, two caps of wine bottles, one pen, one lighter, one matchbox having few match sticks on the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P/16). He handed over the body of the deceased along with the letter (Ex.P/26) to Constable Basant Shrivastava (PW-17) for post-mortem. On 04.07.2009 Dr.Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) conducted post-mortem and gave post-mortem report (Ex.P/33). Dr. Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) after taking clothes of the deceased, sealed the same and handed over to the concerning constable for further examination. Head Constable Dileram Yadav seized sealed packets of the clothes of deceased from Constable Basant Shrivastava (PW-17) vide seizure memo (Ex.P/28). 5. On 04.07.2009, at 11.30 am, R.R. Bansal (PW-18) seized blood stained soil and plain soil vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17) at 11.50 am, he also seized a bicycle of the deceased from Ratnagiri Chauraha in front of Desi Kalari Anand Nagar Piplani, Bhopal vide seizure memo (Ex.P/18). 6. On 05.07.2009 SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) taken custody of appellant/accused Mulchand at 05.00 pm. During interrogation appellant Mulchand has made statment before the witnesses that he hide the knife in a sewage at Bus Stand Bhopal, hidden bottles of wine and beer near the pile of garbage in Jamboori ground Bhopal, have hidden a mobile phone in his village Chauka, District-Raisen and he washe the clothes which he worn that day and is wearing the same clothes. R.R. Bansal (PW-18) prepared memorandum (Ex.P/2). He seized a blood stained T- Shirt and Jeans pant produced by the accused Mulchand vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). At 5.20 pm on the personal search of the accused Mulchand, SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) seized Nokia mobile phone, sim number 9981863299, a steel bracelet, a wrist band, a black purse containing cash of Rs.400/- and a driving license, two voter-IDs, photographes, one paper cutting, a slip of plain paper on which mobile number of co-accused Smt. Saroj Sen i.e. 7179179373 was written, transport visiting cards vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5). At 05.45 pm he seized an empty beer bottle, a half filled bottle from Jamboori Dushehra ground near Akashwani Centre Anand Nagar, Piplani at the instance of the accused Mulchand vide seizure memo (Ex.P/4). At 6.45 pm he recovered a blood stained sharp knife from a sewage near Naudera Bus Stand Bhopal at the instance of the accused Mulchand and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/3). At 6.45 pm he recovered a blood stained sharp knife from a sewage near Naudera Bus Stand Bhopal at the instance of the accused Mulchand and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/3). At 7 pm he arrested the accused Mulchand vide arrest memo (Ex. P/1). 7. On 06.07.2009 at around 10.50 am, R.R. Bansal (PW-18) seized a Nokia mobile phone with sim number 9179179373 from the possession of the co-accused Smt. Saroj Sen vide seizure memo (Ex.P/8). At 11 am he arrested co-accused Smt. Saroj Sen and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/14). On 07.07.2009 at around 10.30 am he search the house of the accused Mulchand situated at Village Chauka District-Raisen but no mobile phone was there. He prepared a search memo (Ex.P/7). On 09.07.2009 he searched the hut of Ganpat Sen (PW-7) maternal uncle of accused Mulchand, but mobile phone of accused Mulchand was not found vide search memo (Ex.P/18). 8. SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) on 04.07.2009 wrote a letter (Ex.P/20) to Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch Bhopal for providing call details of the deceased mobile number 9755937399. Call details of mobile number 9755937399 (Ex.P/21-C) along with letter (Ex.P/21) was received from the office of the District Crime Branch, M.P. Nagar Bhopal. SHO R.R. Bansal (PW-18) wrote a letter (Ex. P/22) to the Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch Bhopal for providing call details of mobile number 9981863299 of the accused Mulchand and mobile number 9179179373 of co-accused Smt. Saroj Sen, wherefrom call details (Ex.P/23-C) along with letter (Ex.P/23) was received. SHO R.R. Bansal sent the seized articles for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal vide letter (Ex.P/30) through Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, wherefrom a receipt (Ex.P/31) dated 10.08.2009 and FSL report (Ex.P/32) dated 31.10.2009 were received. Statement of witnesses had been written during investigation. In the investigation it was found that the deceased was husband of the co- accused Smt. Saroj Sen and there was illicit relationship between the accused Mulchand and co-accused Smt. Saroj Sen. The deceased had been an obstacle in their relationship, so the accused persons made a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, the accused Mulchand murdered the deceased. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. 9. The trial Court framed the charge against the appellants/accused persons. The accused persons had abjured the guilt and pleaded not guilty. 10. The deceased had been an obstacle in their relationship, so the accused persons made a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, the accused Mulchand murdered the deceased. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. 9. The trial Court framed the charge against the appellants/accused persons. The accused persons had abjured the guilt and pleaded not guilty. 10. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Rasheed Khan (PW-1), Yogendra Solanki (PW-2), Imrat Lal Sen (PW-3), Ramji Sen (PW-4), Pooran Singh (PW-5), Achchhelal (PW-6), Ganpat (PW-7), Lakhan Lal (PW-8), Vinay Sinha (PW-9), Heeralal Sen (PW-10), Bhairo Lal Sen (PW-11), Surendra Singh (PW-12), Hari Narayan (PW-13), Sadaram Meena (PW-14), Prem Shankar Singh (PW-15), Shailendra Singh (PW-16), Basant Shrivastava (PW-17), R.R. Bansal (PW-18) and Dr. Vimla Prajapati (PW-19). 11. After completion of prosecution evidence, learned trial Court examined the appellants/accused persons under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which the appellants took the defence that they did not commit the offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Though the accused persons have not examined any witness in their defence. 12. Learned trial Court after relying on the circumstantial evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 13. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Saroj Sen submitted that the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant only on the ground of criminal conspiracy with the appellant Mulchand to kill the deceased but there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial on record with regard to criminal conspiracy made by appellant with the accused Mulchand. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the case of Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 54 , Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of H.P. (1999) 2 SCC 288 , Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others (1993) 3 SCC 609 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and Others, (2009) 8 SCC 617 . 14. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant and that despite of absence of any legal evidence, the trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Sheetla Sahai and Others, (2009) 8 SCC 617 . 14. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant and that despite of absence of any legal evidence, the trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. He also submits that the complainant and investigator cannot be the same, but in this case SHO R.R. Bansal (PW- 18) lodged Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/29) as a complainant and also lodged an FIR (Ex.P/27), thus as a complainant he has no right to investigate the case therefore entire investigation procedure is suspicious. In this regard he placed reliance on the case of K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 1 SCC 355 , Krishnan and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2003) 7 SCC 56 , Ramakant Rai Vs. Madan Rai and Others, (2003) 12 SCC 395, Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 15 and Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 . 15. Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Mulchand submits that the trial Court convicted the appellant only on the ground of call details and articles seized from him. It is further submitted that there was absence of certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1873 and the call details are not admissible in evidence. The trial Court committed error in admitting the evidence relating to the call details. Recovery of weapons from the appellant and motive of offence is not proved by the prosecution against the appellant. Finding and judgment of the trial Court is erroneous, illegal and bad in law. There is no direct evidence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstances are not established beyond reasonable doubt againt the appellant. The trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence correctly, hence the impugned judgment is not sustainable. 16. Per contra, Shri A.S. Baghel, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the submissions and contended that the judgment of conviction and sentence is in accordance with the law. Chain of circumstances is fully established against the appellants. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty. The appeals are liable to be rejected. 17. No other point is pressed by the counsel for the parties. 18. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 19. Chain of circumstances is fully established against the appellants. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty. The appeals are liable to be rejected. 17. No other point is pressed by the counsel for the parties. 18. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 19. Entering upon the merits of the case this Court thinks it apposite to find out as to whether the death of the deceased Ramratan Sen was homicidal in nature or not. 20. Dr. Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) stated that she was posted as Medical Officer, Medico Legal Institute Gandhi Medical College Bhopal. On 04.07.2009 Constable Basant Shrivastava (PW-17) brought the dead body of the deceased Ramratan for post-mortem. At the time of examination, she found that the deceased wore dirty white and green check full shirt, white baniyaan, grey full pant, black belt and mustard colour underwear. Body, face and clothings were stained with blood. Both eyes and mouth were closed, both fists were semi closed, rigour mortis were present all over the body, hypostatis present on the back. Injuries :- She found following injuries over the dead body of the deceased:- (1) Incised wound right pinna having vertical sharp cut. It has cut the cartilage of pinna vertically, the lateral part of the ear is attached only by skin at upper and lower ends. (2) Incised wound right fronto parietal region of scalp, oblique, size 4x1cm x skin deep. (3) Incised wound left parieto temporal region, coronal, size 5x1.5cmxskin deep. (4) Two friction abrassions on right side of face,Upper one is situated just on the lateral end of right eyebrow and the other one is situated just anterior to the right ear. (5) Incised wound situated just below the lower end of right ear, obliquely vertical, size 2x1cmxskin deep. (6) Incised wound on right side of neck, horizontal size 2x1cmx muscle deep. (7) Friction abrassion right side of neck, horizontal, just below the above injury, size 2x1 cm. (8) Cut throat injury present on right anterolateral aspect of neck, it is 10 cm long , 8 cm wide and 6 cm deep. It is situated above the thyroid cartilage. Incised wound extending from right sternocleidomastoid muscle to left sternocleidomastoid. Trachea and oesophagus are cut and separated transversely. All the tissues are cut and separated transversely. (8) Cut throat injury present on right anterolateral aspect of neck, it is 10 cm long , 8 cm wide and 6 cm deep. It is situated above the thyroid cartilage. Incised wound extending from right sternocleidomastoid muscle to left sternocleidomastoid. Trachea and oesophagus are cut and separated transversely. All the tissues are cut and separated transversely. (9) Vertical stab wound present on right side of chest 1 cm medial to the nipple, size 3x1x8 cm, direction downwards and medially, margins clean cut, both ends tapering, it has entered the thoracic cavity and given cut to the 5th rib and right lung. (10) Obliquely vertical stab injury present on right side of chest situated 6cm below the injury number no.9 size 3x2x14 cm, direction downwards and medially, it has entered into the right lung after cutting the 7th rib. (11) Stab wound on right side of abdomen 2 cm above and lateral to the umblicus size 5x3x13 cm, clean cut margins. Direction downwards and medially, it has cut the loops of intestine, Horizontal wound, both ends tampering. (12) Stab wound 2 cm medial to right anterior superior iliac spine, horizontal, size 2.5x1x8 cm. Direction downwards and medially, it has cut the loops of intestine. (13) Obliquely vertical stab wound on left side of chest size 3.5x1cmx14 cm, situated at the level of 8th left rib and above intercostal space, its direction is upwards and medially, deep inside thoracic cavity cutting the rib and entered into the left vertical of heart. (14) Stab wound middle of chest 2 cm below the sternum lower end, Horizontal size 2x1x8 cm, it has cut the soft tissues and entered into the liver, direction downwards and medially both ends tapering. (15) Stab wound horizontal midline 5 cm above the umblicus, both ends tapering, margins clean cut size 5x2x8 cm. Direction downwards and medially it has cut loops of intestine. (16) Stab wound 2cm left lateral to umblicus horizontal size 2x1x5 cm both ends tapering, direction downwards and medially, cut the pelvic loops of intestine. (17) Stab wound 2 cm below and left lateral to the above injury size 2x1x6 cm, direction same as above, cut the loops of intestine. (18) Stab wound 2.5 cm below and left lateral to the above injury, size 2x1x5 cm. Direction downwards and medially, cut the loops of intestine. (17) Stab wound 2 cm below and left lateral to the above injury size 2x1x6 cm, direction same as above, cut the loops of intestine. (18) Stab wound 2.5 cm below and left lateral to the above injury, size 2x1x5 cm. Direction downwards and medially, cut the loops of intestine. (19) Multiple defence wounds on left palm on obliquely vertical direction, size varrying from 3x1x1 cm to 2x1x1 cm. Margins clean cut, underneath tissues echymosed. (20) Incised wound on left side of neck just below and behind left ear to the vertebral column in midline, horizontal 3x1x5 cm size, margins clean cut tissues ecchymosed. (21) Obliquely vertical incised wound on right side of neck just below and behind right ear size 5x2x3 cm margins clear cut, tissues ecchymosed. (22) Stab wound on left side of back at level of 4th thoracic vertebral 5 cm lateral to vertebral column obliquely vertical, at the level of spine of scapula. Both ends tapering, margins clean cut, it has cut the scapula and entered into the right ventricle of heart, size 3x1x14 cm, direction downwards and medially. (23) Stab wound on right side of back at the upper border of right scapula 8 cm lateral to vertebral column, vertical, size 3x1x10 cm , both ends tapering, margins clean cut, it has cut the scapula and entered into the right lung. (24) Stab wound on right side of back at the lower end of scapula, 6 cm lateral to the vertebral column, vertical, size 4x1x8 cm, both ends tapering, margins clean cut, it has cut the scapula and entered into the right lung. 21. Dr. Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) further stated that margins of all the stab wounds are clean cut, both ends are tapering, thoracic cavity and abdominal cavities are full of blood, brain pale subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage present, all organs are pale, clothings are having corresponding cut marks as they are on the body. She also preserved clothes of the deceased, sealed it and handed over to the concerning Constable for further examination. 22. Dr. Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) opined that death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the body of deceased all the injuries have been caused by hard, sharp and penetrating object. Injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 22. Dr. Vimla Prajapati (PW-19) opined that death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the body of deceased all the injuries have been caused by hard, sharp and penetrating object. Injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death is homicidal in nature and duration of death is within 24 hours since postmortem examination. She proved post- mortem report (Ex.P/33). She further said that she drew a body structure (Ex.P/34) to show the injuries on the dead body and she also prepared a brief post-mortem report which is (Ex. P/35).There has been no cross- examination of this witness by the defence counsel, hence there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the aforesaid witness. Therefore her statement is reliable and it appears that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 23. So far as the question of criminal conspiracy between appellants/accused persons to kill the deceased, the trial court has relied on the statement of Imrat Lal Sen ( PW-3), Ganpat (PW-7), Heeralal Sen ((PW-10), Bhairo Lal Sen ((PW-11) and found that the wife of Ganpat (PW-7) Smt Rekha Sen is elder sister of the accused Smt Saroj Sen. Witness Ganpat (PW-7)) is Brother-in law (Sadhu Bhai) of the deceased. Deceased was working in Tent House Patna of Vinay Sinha ( PW-9) and used to live in a room in shanty made by Ganpat (PW-7), along with his wife Saroj Sen. Ganpat (PW-7) used to live in a different room in the same shanty. Accused Mulchand being nephew of Ganpat (PW-7) used to visit him sometimes and also visited the accused Smt. Saroj Sen sometimes. Heera Lal Sen ( (PW-10) and Bhairo Lal Sen (PW-11) being real brother of the deceased used to come to his home to meet him and they have also seen the accused Mulchand in the house of the deceased with the accused Smt Saroj Sen. Prior to the incident the deceased also complained to Bhairo Lal Sen (PW-11) on telephone that Saroj is not of a good character, then Bhairo Lal (PW-11) advised him to file a report against the accused Mulchand. The trial Court reached to the conclusion from the statement of Heera Lal Sen (PW-10) and Bhairo Lal (PW-11) that there was illicit relationship between the accused persons. The trial Court reached to the conclusion from the statement of Heera Lal Sen (PW-10) and Bhairo Lal (PW-11) that there was illicit relationship between the accused persons. The trial Court further relied on statement of Constable Surendra Singh (PW- 12). Call details (Ex,P/21-C) and (Ex.P/23-C) and found that there was 14 conversations on 03.07.2009 from 9:42 am to 11:47 pm and 6 conversations from 12.00 am to 9.20 am of 04.07.2009. As the accused is only a so called relative of Saroj Sen there is no clear reason of having 20 conversations between them within the short span of 24 hours. Therefore it is a circumstantial evidence that they conspired together through telephonic conversation to commit murder of the deceased Ramratan. 24. The Supreme court in the case of Vijayan (supra) held as under: '11. So far as the circumstances for bringing home the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B against accused Sadanandan are concerned, the less said the better. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is no doubt true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and, therefore, from established facts an inference could be drawn but there must be some material from which it would be reasonable to establish a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy. In the case in hand, we do not find any material produced even for inferring a conspiracy between the two accused persons to do away with the deceased Majeendran.' 25. The Supreme court in the case of Sanjiv Kumar (supra) observed thus: '19. Coming to the question of charge under Section 120- B IPC to establish a conspiracy between accused Sanjiv Kumar and accused Kamlesh, apart from the relationship, namely, Sanjiv was the nephew of Kamlesh the prosecution evidence is totally silent to establish a criminal conspiracy between them for committing the murder of deceased Rajesh. The offence under Section 120-B is an agreement between the parties to do a particular act. There is not an iota of material to establish the alleged agreement between accused Sanjiv Kumar and accused Kamlesh. The offence under Section 120-B is an agreement between the parties to do a particular act. There is not an iota of material to establish the alleged agreement between accused Sanjiv Kumar and accused Kamlesh. In the absence of such evidence, the mere fact that Sanjiv Kumar was the nephew of Kamlesh cannot be held to be sufficient to lead to an inference of conspiracy. Association of Sanjiv Kumar with Kamlesh being a relation is not enough to establish that both of them entered into a conspiracy to kill deceased Rajesh. In the aforesaid premises, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State was right in his submission that the charge of conspiracy cannot be sustained. We accordingly, set aside the conviction of accused Sanjiv Kumar as well as of accused Kamlesh under Sections 302/120-B of the India Penal Code.' 26. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as under : '10. In Mohammad Usman, Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra : (1981) 2 SCC 443 , it was held that for an offence under Section 120-B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra : (1970) 1 SCC 696 , it was held that Section 120-B IPC makes the criminal conspiracy as a substantive offence which offence postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an act by illegal means. If the offence itself is to commit an offence, no further steps are needed to be proved to carry the agreement into effect. In R.K.Dalmia and Anr. v. The Delhi Administration : [1963] 1 SCR 253, it was further held that it is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. In Shivanarayan laxminarayan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors : (1980) 2 SCC 465 , this Court emphasized that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.' 27. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.' 27. Likewise in the case of Sheetla Sahai (supra), the Apex Court has held as under ; 'In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), [ 1988 (3) SCC 609 at 731, para 271], this Court has quoted the following passage from Russell on Crimes (12th Edn. Vol 1): 'The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough.' 28. In respect of principle of reasonable doubt The Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan and Another (supra) opined thus: '23. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. Similar view has been taken by the Apex court in the case of Ramakant Rai (supra) and K. Gopal Reddy (supra). 29. Imrat Lal Sen (PW-3), who is a so called relative of the deceased, has stated that he has no knowledge about relationship between the appellants. He has not supported the prosecution case hence the prosecution has declared him hostile and cross-examined him. In paragraph 6 of cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of prosecution that he is not disclosing the truth in order to protect the accused Mulchand. Hence statement of this witness does not help the prosecution. 30. Ganpat (PW-7) deposed that the accused Mulchand visited his house one month prior to the incident, he stayed once or twice in his home. He also used to go to the deceased house. Hence statement of this witness does not help the prosecution. 30. Ganpat (PW-7) deposed that the accused Mulchand visited his house one month prior to the incident, he stayed once or twice in his home. He also used to go to the deceased house. He has not seen or heard the accused Mulchand talking to Saroj Sen. This witness also has not supported the prosecution case, hence the prosecution has declared him hostile and cross examined him. In paragraph 7 of his cross examination has stated that he does not know that the accused Mulchand and Saroj Sen used to lark around. Heeralal Sen (PW-10) stated that the accused used to visit his maternal uncle Ganpat's (PW-7) home. Sometimes this witness also used to visit Ganpat's (PW-7) home. He has seen the accused sitting in deceased house. Besides this he havn't seen anything. This witness also has not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has declared him hostile and cross examined him. In paragraph 3 of cross examination, he admitted the suggestion of prosecution that once he went to deceased home and had seen the accused Mulchand there and at that time co-accused Smt. Saroj Sen was also present in his house, but the deceased was not present. He did not talk to Saroj Sen. In paragraph 5 of cross examination this witness has admitted that he lived in Bhopal. 31. Bhairo Lal Sen (PW-11) deposed that he lives in Bhopal and he used to go to deceased's house sometimes. He further stated that once he had gone on the shop where deceased used to work, then the deceased told him that Saroj was not of a good character, she has illegal relation with other man. He also stated that when he went to the deceased's house, he saw that co-accused Saroj Sen, her elder sister Rekha and the accused Mulchand were present there. He has never seen the accused person individually. This witness also has not supported the case. Hence the prosecution has declared hostile and cross examined him, in paragraph 8, he has denied that the deceased told him that there was any illicit relationship between the accused persons. He has never seen the accused person individually. This witness also has not supported the case. Hence the prosecution has declared hostile and cross examined him, in paragraph 8, he has denied that the deceased told him that there was any illicit relationship between the accused persons. Therefore it does not appear from the statement of the aforesaid witnesses that there was any illicit relation between the accused persons, though it appears that being a so called relative of the accused Mulchand with Ganpat (PW-7) he used to come in his house as well as deceased's house, but on the basis to this reason an inference can not be drawn of the existence of illicit relationship between the accused persons. Hence the trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly in this regard and erred in holding that there was illicit relation between the accused persons. 32. So far as the telephonic conversation is concerned SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) stated that he has seized a mobile phone, sim number 9981863299 from the appellant Mulchand and a Nokia mobile phone sim number 9179179373 from accused Smt Saroj Sen and prepared seizure memo (Ex. P/5) and (Ex.P/8) respectively. Raseed Khan (PW/1) and Yogendra Solanki (PW/2) have not supported the case of prosecution. Hence the prosecution has declared them hostile and cross examined them. Rasheed Khan (PW/1) in paragraph 7 and 8 of cross examination has denied that the police has seized a mobile phone from the accused Mulchand and a mobile phone from the accused Smt. Saroj Sen. Yogendra Solanki (PW/2) in paragraph 6 has admitted that at the time of personal search a mobile phone was found in possession of the accused Mulchand and the police has seized the mobile phone though he has denied the seizure of mobile phone by police from Saroj, but both the witnesses have admitted their signature on the seizure memo (Ex.P/5) and (Ex.P/8). Hence statement of SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) is reliable. 33. Constable Surendra Singh (PW-12) deposed that on the basis of letter (Ex.P/20) and (Ex.P/22) an email request has been sent to Airtel and Idea companies, thereafter call details (Ex.P/21-C) (Ex.P/23-C) of concerning mobile phone have been received from the aforesaid companies. In paragraph 6 of cross examination, this witness has admitted that there is no signature on the call details. Constable Surendra Singh (PW-12) deposed that on the basis of letter (Ex.P/20) and (Ex.P/22) an email request has been sent to Airtel and Idea companies, thereafter call details (Ex.P/21-C) (Ex.P/23-C) of concerning mobile phone have been received from the aforesaid companies. In paragraph 6 of cross examination, this witness has admitted that there is no signature on the call details. On perusal of call details (Ex.P/21-C) and (Ex.P/23-C), it appears that the aforesaid call details are printout copies and is not certified by the concerning officer. 34. In the case of Anvar P.V. vs P. K. Basheer and Others (2014) 10 SCC 473 the Supreme court has held thus :- "22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65-A and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case, does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.' The same principle is followed in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1 . 35. In the instant case respondent/prosecution admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act 1873, in respect of call details (Ex.P/21-C) and (Ex.P/23-C) therefore the same cannot be admitted in evidence. On the basis of aforesaid printouts of call details it is not proved that at the relevant time appellants/accused persons had any telephonic conversation. On the basis of aforesaid printouts of call details it is not proved that at the relevant time appellants/accused persons had any telephonic conversation. Hence no inference can be drawn against the appellants that they had made criminal conspiracy on telephone to kill the deceased. 36. Next question arises as to whether the blood stained articles have been recovered at the instance of the accused Mulchand ? 37. SHO R.R.Bansal (PW-18) deposed that on 05.07.2009 at 5.00 pm during interrogation appellant Mulchand has made statement that he hide the knife in a sewage at Bus Stand Bhopal, hidden empty bottles of beer near the pile of garbage in Jamboori ground Bhopal, hidden a mobile phone in his village Chauka District Raisen and he washed the clothes which he worn that day and is wearing the same clothes. He prepared memorandum (Ex.P/2). 38. SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) further deposed that he seized blood stained clothes from the accused produced by himself and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/6). He recovered a blood stained sharp knife from a sewage near Naudera Bus Stand Bhopal at the instance of the accused Mulchand and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/3). Thereafter he arrested the acccused Mulchand vide arrest memo (Ex.P/1). 39. Rasheed Khan (PW-1) and Yogendra Solanki (PW-2) stated that the police have taken custody of the accused Mulchand before them and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/1).They further said that the accused disclosed that he had hidden the knife in a sewage behind the bus stand. Thereafter the accused Mulchand took the knife out from sewage near Naudera bus stand and produced it before the police. The police has seized the aforesaid knife and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/3). The witnesses also stated that the accused produced the clothes (T-shirt and pant) worn by him after taking them off, which the police seized from the accused and prepared seizure memo ( Ex.P/6). 40. The aforesaid statement of SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) supported by memorandum (Ex.P/2), seizure memo (Ex.P/3) and (Ex.P/6) and arrest memo (Ex.P/1) as well as statements of Rasheed Khan (PW-1) and Yogendra Solanki (PW-2). Both the witnesses have been cross examined by the opposite party at length but no amount of cross examination could cause a scratch on the correctness of their statements. 41. SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) stated that he prepared spot map (Ex.P/14) on the instance of Sadaram Meena (PW-14). Both the witnesses have been cross examined by the opposite party at length but no amount of cross examination could cause a scratch on the correctness of their statements. 41. SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) stated that he prepared spot map (Ex.P/14) on the instance of Sadaram Meena (PW-14). Though Pooran Singh (PW-5) has denied that the spot map (Ex.P/14) has been prepared before him but he admitted his signature on the spot map. Sadaram Meena (PW-14) stated that the police has prepared a spot map (Ex.P/14). Statement of SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) is supported by Sadaram Meena (PW-14). Therefore, his statement is reliable. 42. SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) stated that on 04.07.2009 he seized blood stained and plain soil from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17). His statement is supported by Pooran Singh (PW-5). Therefore, his statement is reliable. 43. Constable Basant Shrivastava (PW-17) deposed that after post mortem of the deceased he received sealed packet of his clothes from the doctor, thereafter he produced the sealed packet to Head Constable Dileram Yadav. Head Constable Dileram Yadav seized the aforesaid sealed packet containing deceased's clothes and prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P/28). This witness has not been cross examined by the apellants. Hence his statement is reliable. 44. SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) deposed that he sent the seized articles to FSL Sagar along with letter (Ex.P/30) to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal for chemical examination. After examination FSL report (Ex.P/32) was received and as per FSL report (Ex.P/32) it appears that human blood was found on the shirt, baniyan, pant, underwear and belt (Article C1-C5) of the deceased and on the knife, shirt and pant (Article D, E1 and E2) of the accused Mulchand. It was also found that 'O' group blood was found on the belt ( Article C5) of deceased and knife (Article D) shirt and pant (Article E1 and E2) of the accused Mulchand. The accused Mulchand has not given any explaination as to how human blood and particularly 'O' blood group was present on the knife recovered by the police on his instance and on shirt and pant which were recovered from him. 45. In respect to the circumstantial evidence the Apex court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , opined as under : '153. 45. In respect to the circumstantial evidence the Apex court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , opined as under : '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. 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 Mahrashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p.807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] 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. 46. With regard to the submission made by the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive and therefore the appellants deserve acquittal, in this respect the Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali and Another Vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 held as under :- '24. 46. With regard to the submission made by the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive and therefore the appellants deserve acquittal, in this respect the Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali and Another Vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 held as under :- '24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v.State of Bihar 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In paras 25 and 26, it is observed and held as under :- (Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 SCC pp. 200-01) '25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73 , this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed: (SCC pp. 87- 88, paras 3839) '38 the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. 39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also a settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. It is also a settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.' 47. In the instant case it was found that the appellant Mulchand sometimes used to visit deceased's house but it is not found proved that there was illicit relationship between appellant Mulchand and the deceased's wife/appellant Smt. Saroj Sen, therefore motive is not proved, but as per the statement of Dr.Vimla Prajapati (PW- 19), 24 injuries were found on deceased's body and this witness also opined that all the injuries were caused by hard, sharp and penetrating weapon. 'O' Group blood was found on the said knife. Therefore it is clear that the knife ( Article D) seized on the instance of accused Mulchand was used for committing the crime. It is also clear that the blood stained clothes recoverd from the accused were worn by him at the time of commission of the offence. The appellant/accused Mulchand has not given any explaination with respect to the presence of 'O' Group human blood on his clothes and knife. Therefore, it is clear that there is a very strong circumstance against the accused Mulchand. This circumstance is of conclusive nature that only the accused Mulchand has committed the offence and by no one else. 48. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant for Smt. Saroj Sen submitted that one person cannot be the complainant as well as investigation officer in a case and relied on the case of Bhagwan Singh (supra) and Mohan Lal (supra). 49. In the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 , Full Bench of the Supreme court held as under :- '13.1. 49. In the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 , Full Bench of the Supreme court held as under :- '13.1. (I) That the observation of this court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Megha Singh v. State of Haryana and State v. Rajangam and the acquittal of the accused by this court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator, there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused in entitled to acquittal. 13.2.(II) In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of this court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused in entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.' 50. In the light of observations given in the case of Mukesh Singh (supra), the case laws produced by the appellant of Bhagwan Singh (supra) and Mohan Lal (supra) is not applicable. There is no evidence in this case that SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) was biased or prejudiced with the appellants. Hence being complainant and investigation officer in the present case, investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or biasness and therefore, on the aforesaid ground the accused persons are not entitled to acquittal. 51. There is no evidence in this case that SHO R.R Bansal (PW-18) was biased or prejudiced with the appellants. Hence being complainant and investigation officer in the present case, investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or biasness and therefore, on the aforesaid ground the accused persons are not entitled to acquittal. 51. On the basis of the foregoing discussions, it is clear that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the appellant/accused Smt. Saroj Sen that she made a criminal conspiracy with the accused Mulchand and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy the accused Mulchand has killed the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence of the appellants/accused persons under section 302 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 beyond all reasonable doubts, but the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused Mulchand has intentionally caused death of the deceased Ramratan. Therfore, it appears that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence available on record and erred in convicting the accused Smt. Saroj Sen. Hence, the appeal filed by Smt. Saroj Sen deserves to be allowed while the appeal filed by Mulchand is allowed partly. 52. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.1438/2010 filed by Smt. Saroj Sen is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 302/120B is set aside and she is acquitted from the aforesaid charge. Appellant Smt. Saroj Sen is in custody. She be set free immediately, if she is not required in any other case. 53. Criminal Appeal No. 2147/2010 filed by appellant Mulchand is partly allowed and his conviction and sentence under section 302/120B of IPC is altered to section 302 of IPC. With the aforesaid, appeals stand disposed of.