JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Since all the appeals respectively bearing number CRA-D- 1104-DB-2015, number CRA-S-2762-SB-2015, and, number CRA-S- 2763-SB-2015 arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence all the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons. 2. All the appeals (supra) arise from a verdict, as made on 30.5.2015, upon Sessions Case No. 30/2013, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Through the above said verdict, the learned trial Judge concerned, convicted accused Rajbir, and, Kulvinder, in respect of charges drawn qua commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B, Section 365, and, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, and, also convicted the above accused, in respect of a charge drawn against them for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. However, through the verdict (supra), the learned trial Judge concerned, though acquitted accused Surinder alias Pappi, and, Rajinder qua charges drawn against them for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 365, 302 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC, but he convicted them for a charge drawn against them for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order, drawn on 30.5.2015, the learned trial convicting Court concerned, imposed upon convicts Rajbir, and, Kulvinder, the hereinafter extracted sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as of fine. Under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code To undergo imprisonment for life Under Section 365 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. 15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Moreover, the learned trial Judge concerned, imposed upon convicts Rajinder and Surinder alias Pappi, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, extending upto a term of two years, besides imposed upon them, sentence of fine, comprised in a sum of Rs. 2500/- each, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. The term(s) of the substantive sentence(s) of imprisonment, imposed upon convicts Rajbir, and, Kulvinder were ordered to run concurrently, but the period spent in custody by the convicts (supra), during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed substantive sentence(s) of imprisonment. 5. All the convict become aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, become aggrieved from the consequent therewith sentence(s) of imprisonment(supra), and, of fine as became imposed, upon them, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence have chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeals, before this Court. 6. The State of Haryana has not constituted any appeal before this Court, in respect of the verdict of acquittal, as made qua co-accused Surinder alias Pappi, and, Rajinder, in respect of charges, as became drawn against them for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 365, 302 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Thus, the above verdict of acquittal acquires a binding, and, conclusive effect. Therefore, this Court is required to make an adjudication only upon the appeals (supra). Factual Background 7. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR. The allegations against the accused are that on 25.10.2012, in the area of village Ranwar, all the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Kusum, daughter of Rajbir, with an intention, that she will be wrongfully confined, and thus, all have committed an offence punishable under section 120-B IPC. The allegations against the accused are that on 25.10.2012, in the area of village Ranwar, all the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Kusum, daughter of Rajbir, with an intention, that she will be wrongfully confined, and thus, all have committed an offence punishable under section 120-B IPC. Secondly; on the same date, time and place; they all in furtherance to their criminal conspiracy, had kidnapped Kusum with an intention, that she would be secretly and wrongfully confined, and, hence they are alleged to commit an offence punishable under section 365 IPC read with section 120-B IPC. Thirdly, they all on 30.10.2012 in the area of village Sadarpur, in furtherance to their criminal conspiracy with each other, are alleged to commit the murder of Kusum by intentionally causing her death, thus they are alleged to commit an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC. Lastly on the same date, time and place, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention knowing or having the reasons to believe that an offence has been committed caused disappearance of the dead body of Kusum with intention to screen themselves from legal punishment, hence they are alleged to commit an offence punishable under section 201 IPC read with section 34 IPC. 8. On 6.1.2013, ASI Rajpal (Retired)-PW5 was present at Police Station Gharaunda, where Karambir son of Raghbir Singh resident of village Churni Jattan-PW1 had met him and got recorded a statement Ex. P-1, and, thus ignited the prosecution case. The English translated version of his statement is reproduced below "Stated that I am residing at above mentioned address and do work in a Welding Shop at Kurukshetra. Kela wife of Gurdyal who is Bua (father's sister) of Kusum is married in our village. Kusum had stayed with her Bua at village Churni Jattan in January 2012 for 3-4 months. I had developed friendly relations with Kusum and we solemnized 'Love Marriage' on 5.7.2012 at Shani Mandir, Panchkula and obtained certificate from Pujari of the Mandir, in this regard on 5.7.2012. On 7.7.2012; we got protection order from Sessions Judge-Kurukshetra. Thereafter, we started residing at our house (matrimonial home), as husband and wife, with the consent of our families and lived at such for 3-4 months. On 7.7.2012; we got protection order from Sessions Judge-Kurukshetra. Thereafter, we started residing at our house (matrimonial home), as husband and wife, with the consent of our families and lived at such for 3-4 months. On 16.10.2012; Gurdyal son of Atma Ram-uncle (Fufa) of Kusum had submitted a complaint at Police Station-Shahbad, with the allegations that; we are forcibly keeping Kusum. On this complaint; Rajbir son of Kartara (father), Gurdyal son of Atma Ram (Fufa), Balinder son of Gurdyal and other persons of village, had taken Kusum, along with them and left her at her Mama's (maternal uncle's) home at village Ganjogarhi Thereafter, on 20/21.10.2012; Kusum telephoned me to take her back; as these people are telling her that they will get her foetus aborted; would eliminate Karambir, send him to jail and these persons have illegally confined/detained her, and not allowing her to go outside. On 25.10.12 Kusum fled away from their custody/home and made a telephonic call to me from village-Ranwar at my mobile phone No.(94163-14244) from mobile phone No. 98132-28875) and told me to take her from village Ranwar. Then a boy namely Rajesh, from whose mobile Phone No. 98132-28875 Kusum telephoned me, had left Kusum with Sarpanch of Ranwar. From there, Mama (maternal uncle-Rajinder) of Kusum had taken her at village Ganjogarhi. Thereafter, I had not heard anything from Kusum and I had not heard of her whereabouts. Thereafter, on 18.11.2012; I filed a petition in Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh for securing presence of Kusum before the court. 5.12.2012 was the date fixed in that case and nobody turned up on that day. Thereafter, 19.12.2012 was the date and now it is 6.2.2013. Kusum had been illegally confined/ concealed by her father Rajbir son of Kartara resident Sadarpur, by her mother Sunita wife of Rajbir; by her fufa Gurdyal son of Atma Ram resident of Chumi Jattan; Kela wife of Gurdyal, Balwinder alias Balinder son of Gurdyal. Kusum be handed over to me; her statement be got recorded and legal action against accused be taken. When Kusum was taken from Shahbad; at that time Balbir son of Jagir Singh (PW2) Krishan Kumar son of Des Raj, Salinder Pal son of Prem Chand and other persons of Churni Jattan were present." Investigation proceedings 9. On this statement Ex.P-1, Karambir-PWI had signed in English. It was attested by ASI Rajpal (Retired)-PW5. When Kusum was taken from Shahbad; at that time Balbir son of Jagir Singh (PW2) Krishan Kumar son of Des Raj, Salinder Pal son of Prem Chand and other persons of Churni Jattan were present." Investigation proceedings 9. On this statement Ex.P-1, Karambir-PWI had signed in English. It was attested by ASI Rajpal (Retired)-PW5. Prima-facie, an offence punishable under section 365/120B IPC appeared to have been committed. Police Proceedings Ex P-6 were recorded and Tehrir-Ex P1 was handed over to MHC-Police Station-Gharaunda for intimating about the number of FIRs, and, ASI Rajpal (Retired)-PW5 commenced investigations. He (ASI Rajpal-PW5) along with complainant Karambir-PWI, Balbir (PW2), Krishan and Salinder reached at village-Sadarpur, and, inspected the place of occurrence. 10. Reins of further investigation had fallen in the hands of Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12. On 06.01.2013, he received a telephonic call from ASI Raj Pal, that a girl was missing from village-Sadarpur and he lodged an FIR in this regard, and, requested him (PW12) to reach there. On this information, Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 along with his staff reached at the spot in village-Sadarpur and ASI Raj Pal-PW5 had handed over him the investigation of the present case. Accordingly, Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 enquired about the matter from some villagers, but no clue was found. On 07.01.2013, he along with ASI Raj Pal-PW5 and Constable Ravinder had reached at village-Sadarpur in government vehicle, and, accused Rajbir son of Karta Ram was found present at his house. He was joined in the investigations, and, thereafter, he was arrested. Accused Rajbir was brought in Cyber Cell, SP Office- Karnal, and, call details were collected from HC Deepak. The investigation team had reached at Thanesar and collected the Ultrasound report Ex-P2 of Kusum-since deceased from Dr. Prarena Aggarwal-PW8, and, the same was taken into police possession vide memo Ex P3. Then the investigation team along with accused Rajbir had reached at the canal bridge of village-Kambopura, where said accused (Rajbir) pointed the place from where he pushed Kusum in the canal. On return to police station, accused Rajbir was lodged in the police lock up. On 08.01.2013, accused Rajbir was taken out from the police lock up and joined in the investigation in the presence of ASI Raj Pal-PW5, and, Constable Ravinder. On return to police station, accused Rajbir was lodged in the police lock up. On 08.01.2013, accused Rajbir was taken out from the police lock up and joined in the investigation in the presence of ASI Raj Pal-PW5, and, Constable Ravinder. During interrogation, accused Rajbir suffered disclosure statement Ex.P23, which was reduced into writing, and, signed by him, as well as, by ASI Raj Pal-PW5, and, by Constable Ravinder Kumar. Raghbir son of Jagir Singh, resident of village Churni Jattan, produced one photograph of Kusum, one CD, and, four photographs of marriage of Kusum with Karambir and one marriage certificate and the same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P24, which was signed by the witnesses. Photograph of Kusum is Ex.P25, her marriage photographs are Ex.P25/1 to Ex.P25/4, CD is Ex.P26 and marriage certificate is Ex P27. Thereafter, while searching for Kusum near the canal, the investigation team reached in the police station and case property was deposited with MHC and accused Rajbir was lodged in the lock up, and, this process continued on 9.1.2013, as well. On 10.01.2013, Inspector Vijay Malik PW-12 again took out accused Rajbir from the lock up, and, interrogated him in the presence of ASI Raj Pal-PW5 and Constable Amarjeet. Accused Rajbir suffered another disclosure statement-Ex.P7, which was reduced into writing, wherein, he disclosed that he along with his both sons namely; Kulvinder and Parveen, had committed murder of his daughter Kusum, and, buried her dead body in the dry fodder room situated at the back of his house. He also disclosed that thereafter, he along with both sons, his brother-in-law namely Rajinder son of Raghbir, and, his friend namely; Surender @ Pappi, after taking out the dead body of Kusum, had put the same in the jute bag and took it in the car of Surinder alias Pappi at the canal bridge of village-Kambopura, and, thrown the same in the canal. He also disclosed that he can identify that place. The disclosure statement-Ex.P7 was signed by accused Rajbir, as well as, by the witnesses concerned. 11. Karambir son of Kartara, resident of village-Sadarpur had produced accused Rajinder. He was joined in the investigation and Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 arrested him in the present case and interrogated him. During interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.P8, which was reduced into writing, and, signed by accused Rajinder, as well as by witnesses. 11. Karambir son of Kartara, resident of village-Sadarpur had produced accused Rajinder. He was joined in the investigation and Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 arrested him in the present case and interrogated him. During interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.P8, which was reduced into writing, and, signed by accused Rajinder, as well as by witnesses. Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 added offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Accused Rajbir led the police party at the place, where they had murdered Kusum, and, identified that place vide memo Ex. P28, and, vide memo Ex.P29, also identified the place, where the dead body of Kusum was buried. Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence as well as, of the place, where the dead body of Kusum was buried by the accused, and, the same is Ex.P30. Thereafter, both the accused namely Rajbir and Rajinder had separately led the police party at the canal bridge of village-Kambopura, from where, they had thrown the dead body of Kusum in the canal, and, also the same got identified vide memos Ex.P31 and Ex.P32. Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 also prepared rough site plan Ex.P33 of that place. Prior to it, accused Rajinder, vide memo Ex.P34, also identified the place in village-Sadarpur, where he had parked the car No. HR-02L-7733. On return to the police station, accused namely; Rajbir and Rajinder were lodged in the lock up. 12. On 11.01.2013, both the accused namely, Rajbir and Rajinder were produced in the Court, and, their police remand was obtained. Thereafter, the investigation team along with these two accused searched for the dead body of Kusum and at the evening time, both these accused were lodged in the lock up in Police Station. On 12.01.2013, both the accused were taken out from the lock up, and, accused Rajinder suffered disclosure statement Ex.P35, wherein he disowned his previous disclosure statement dated 10.1.2013 (Ex.P8) to some extent (regarding whereabouts of car) and suffered subsequent disclosure statement thereby disclosing therein that the car in question bearing No HR02L-7733 was kept by them with Pappi Pehalwan (accused Surinder alias Pappi) and he can get the same recovered. The investigation team along with accused reached at the canal of village-Kambopura, and, searched the dead body of Kusum in the canal in the area of village Kambopura and up to Munak Head. The investigation team along with accused reached at the canal of village-Kambopura, and, searched the dead body of Kusum in the canal in the area of village Kambopura and up to Munak Head. On returning back to the Police Station, the accused were lodged in the lock up. In the Police Station, ASI Nafe Singh and HC Bir Singh of Police Station Sahabad had met the Investigating Officer and produced one application, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex P21. Scaled site plan Ex.P14 of the place of occurrence was got prepared from EHC Vir Shakti Singh-PW6 13. On 13.01.2013, Inspector Vijay Malik was present in the Police Station, where Parveen son of Fakir Chand, resident of Karnal had produced accused Surinder alias Pappi along with car No. HR02L-7733. Accused Surinder alias Pappi was arrested in the present case, and, on interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex P9, which was reduced into writing and attested by ASI Raj Pal-PW5 and EASI Balwant Singh. The car in question was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.P10, which was also attested by ASI Raj Pal-PW5. The photo copy of RC of the aforesaid car was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P11. The case property was deposited with MHC. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused-Surinder alias Pappi had led the police party at the disclosed place in village Sadarpur, and, identified the place, where he had parked the car, and, the dead body was put in the same, vide memo Ex.P12. Thereafter, accused-Surinder alias Pappi also led the police party at the canal bridge of village-Kambopura, and, had identified that place vide memo Ex.P13 from where they had thrown the dead body in the canal. Memos Ex.P12 and Ex P13 bear the signatures of accused Surinder alias Pappi. On return to the police station, accused-Surinder alias Pappi was lodged in the lock up. 14. The investigation team also called Dr. Kamlesh Gill, FSL team in the police station, and, got inspected the car from the FSL team, and, they had handed over Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 an envelope which was converted into a parcel, and, sealed with the seal of monogram RP, and, taken into possession by the police, and, the same was handed over to MHC. Kamlesh Gill, FSL team in the police station, and, got inspected the car from the FSL team, and, they had handed over Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 an envelope which was converted into a parcel, and, sealed with the seal of monogram RP, and, taken into possession by the police, and, the same was handed over to MHC. Thereafter, Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 along with accused Rajbir and FSL team had reached in village Sadarpur, and, the FSL team had inspected the place of occurrence, which was pointed out by accused Rajbir and the FSL team had handed over, two plastic dibbies containing some dry fodder and earth, and, the same were converted into separate parcels and handed over to MHC by Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12. 15. On 14.01.2013, accused Rajbir and Rajinder were produced in the FSL-Madhuban for their polygraph test, where Dr. Surender had conducted their polygraph test, and then, the investigation team returned to Police Station Gharaunda, and, accused Surender @ Pappi was taken out from the lock up and then all the three accused were produced in the Court and were sent to judicial custody. 16. On 23.01.2013, Inspector Vijay Malik-PW12 was present in the Police Station, and, some respectable of the village had produced accused Kulvinder and Parveen sons of Rajbir, and, they were arrested in the present case. During interrogation, accused Kulvinder suffered disclosure statement Ex.P4, which was reduced into writing, and, it was attested by both the witnesses and also signed by the accused. Accused Parveen also suffered disclosure statement regarding the occurrence, and, also identified the place of occurrence. The disclosure statement of accused Parveen was attached with his case file as he was juvenile. In pursuance of the disclosure statement accused Kulvinder had, vide memo Ex.P5, identified the place of occurrence. Thereafter, both the accused namely Kulvinder and Parveen were produced in the Court and they were sent to judicial custody. 17. After conclusion of investigations, the investigating officer concerned, proceeded to institute a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned committal Court concerned. Committal Proceedings 18. Since the offence under Sections 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, thus, the learned committal Court concerned, through a committal order made on 6.5.2013, hence proceeded to commit the accused to face trial before the Court of Session. Trial Proceedings 19. Committal Proceedings 18. Since the offence under Sections 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, thus, the learned committal Court concerned, through a committal order made on 6.5.2013, hence proceeded to commit the accused to face trial before the Court of Session. Trial Proceedings 19. The learned trial Judge concerned, after receiving the case for trial, after its becoming committed to him, made an objective analysis of the incriminatory material, adduced before him. Resultantly, he proceeded to draw charges against the accused, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 365 of the IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, and, also qua offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, besides qua offences punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The afore drawn charges were put to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial. 20. In proof of its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed the prosecution evidence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. They also chose to adduce defence evidence, and, tendered in evidence certified copy of judgment dated 13.8.2014 titled 'State versus Parveen', passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal, as Ex. DX, and, closed the defence evidence. 21. As above stated, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to convict the convicts-appellants for the charges (supra), as became drawn against them, and, also as above stated, proceeded to, in the hereinabove manner, impose the sentence(s) of imprisonment, as well as of fine, upon the convicts. Submissions of the learned senior counsellor the appellants 22. (i) The learned senior counsel for the aggrieved convicts- appellants has vehemently argued before this Court, that the impugned verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith order of sentence, as became recorded, upon the convicts-appellants, by the learned convicting Court concerned, is thoroughly infirm. He rests the above submission on the trite anvil qua the learned convicting Court concerned, making a gross miss-appraisal, besides a non-appraisal of evidence germane to the charge, drawn against the convicts. He rests the above submission on the trite anvil qua the learned convicting Court concerned, making a gross miss-appraisal, besides a non-appraisal of evidence germane to the charge, drawn against the convicts. He submits, that it is a case of corpus delicti, and, rests the above submission, upon the inability of PW-1, to whom the photographs of the dead body of the deceased concerned, were shown, to during his cross-examination, make a firm, and, categorical testification with respect to theirs relating to the identity of deceased Kusum. Moreover, he further submits, qua the inability of the investigating officer concerned, to discover the body of the deceased concerned, inability whereof when does also evidently emerge from an explicit apposite echoing, occurring in the cross-examination of Inspector Vijay Malik, who despite being then shown, the photographs of the deceased concerned, rather omitted to state with firmness, that theirs relating to the identity of one Kusum. Therefore, he submits that it is a clear case of corpus delicti, and, that hence the charge drawn against the accused for theirs committing the murder of deceased Kusum, rather ought to stagger. He further submits, that since PW-12 has further stated, in his cross-examination, that there emerged no clue, during the course of investigations, being made into the appeal FIR, either with respect to the discovery of the deceased person, or with respect to the place wherefrom it could be recovered, even despite, during investigations rather from the canal concerned, though there were many barricades bifurcating the water in other directions. Consequently, the learned senior counsel for the convicts-appellants also argues, that the reliance, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, upon the signatured disclosure statements, whereins, the convicts had evinced their willingness to identify the place of occurrence, and/or, to subsequent thereto drawn identification memos, whereins, they evinced their willingness to demarcate the site, from where they threw the body of the deceased into a canal, is rather misplaced, as also completely misfounded, and, does lose its probative sanctity. (ii) The learned senior counsel for the convicts-appellants further submits, that the learned convicting Court concerned, has inaptly drawn succor from the mandate of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, to erect an inference, that since the deceased was last residing in the company of the accused, therefore, it was but incumbent upon them, to explain the disappearance of the deceased concerned, whereas, the relevant omission obviously resulting in capitalization being made from the mandate occurring in the provisions (supra). 106- Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. (iii) However, reiteratedly when the above explanation has not emanated from the accused, thus, when the above special fact was only known to the accused, hence when they were also concomitantly obliged to discharge the onus of unfolding the said fact, whereas, they have failed to do so. Resultantly, the learned convicting Court concerned, is reiteratedly argued to also inaptly draw an inference, that the accused had murdered the deceased concerned. In making the above submission, the learned senior counsel for the convicts-appellants, has placed reliance, upon Ex. P-20, signed by one Kusum, Rajbeer, and, Sarpanch of village Ranwar. He also supports his submissions by making a reference to the contents of the FIR, whereins, speakings occur about Kusum, after fleeing, making a cell phone call on 20/21.10.2012, with an intimation to the informant, that the accused would abort the fetus, carried in her womb. Furthermore, he also makes a reference of one Kusum, making a cell call intimation to the informant on 25.10.2012 over his mobile No. 94136-14244 from mobile No. 9813228875 from Ranwar, which the latter cell phone belonged to one Rajesh. The learned senior counsel further submits, that since thereins, it is further revealed, that the contents of the intimation given, over the above said cell phone, to the informant by one Kusum, from the cell phone of one Rajesh, was that, the latter had left her with Ranwar's Sarpanch, whereafter Kusum's Mama had brought her back to his village Ganjogarhi. The learned senior counsel further submits, that since thereins, it is further revealed, that the contents of the intimation given, over the above said cell phone, to the informant by one Kusum, from the cell phone of one Rajesh, was that, the latter had left her with Ranwar's Sarpanch, whereafter Kusum's Mama had brought her back to his village Ganjogarhi. Though, thereafter there is a narration in the FIR, that subsequently no phone call was received from Kusum, hence leading him to get worried about the her whereabouts, leading to the institution of a writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, yet the person of Kusum not being produced. He further argues, that the above cell phone intimations given by one Kusum to the informant, with whom Kusum had solemnized inter-caste marriage, and, which became the foundation of the FIR, rather could not lead to any valid proof becoming marshalled in respect thereof. In making the above said submission, he has rested them respect to the discovery of the deceased person, or with respect to the place one Rajesh, who made an intimation to the informant about his leaving one Kusum with Ranwar's Sarpanch, has been either associated in the investigations, nor has been cited as a prosecution witness. Therefore, he contends, that speakings made by PW-1, in his examination-in-chief, whereins, he has corroborated the genesis of the prosecution case, as becomes carried in the appeal FIR, rather do not enjoin evidentiary solemnity. He thereafter submits, that since PW-1, in his cross-examination, has stated that the allegations reared against the convicts are hearsay, therefore, he argues that the entire investigations were completely slanted, and, directionless. (iv) The learned senior counsel has also argued, that even if assumingly, the body of the deceased concerned, was not recovered or discovered, yet may be reliance could be placed, upon the respectively made signatured disclosure statements, hence by the convicts, before the investigating officer concerned, but yet only when the crime site was not earlier thereto visited by the investigating officer concerned. However, he submits, that since it is evident on a reading of the testification(s) of PW-5 (Retired Sub Inspector Raj Pal), and, of PW-12 (Inspector Vijay Malik), qua both of them, prior to the makings of the respective signatured disclosure statements, by the convicts concerned, rather visiting the crime site. However, he submits, that since it is evident on a reading of the testification(s) of PW-5 (Retired Sub Inspector Raj Pal), and, of PW-12 (Inspector Vijay Malik), qua both of them, prior to the makings of the respective signatured disclosure statements, by the convicts concerned, rather visiting the crime site. Resultantly, he argues, that since the crime site was earlier known to the investigating officer concerned, therefore, the identification of the crime site, at the instance of the convicts, is but a sequel of a cleverly deployed stratagem, by the investigating officer concerned, and, to which no reliance can be placed, nor any reliance can be meted to the consequent therewith recoveries (v) The learned senior counsel further argues, that though each of the convicts, through the respectively drawn memos, identified the place of occurrence, besides also identified the place, from where they threw the body of one Kusum into a water body. However, he submits, that even no reliance can be placed thereons. The reason which he assigns for making the above submission becomes hinged, upon the factum, that since prior thereto, through a memo, as embodied in Ex. P-29, the convicts concerned, had identified the place whereinto they, after murdering the one Kusum, had buried her dead body, but he argues, that during the course of investigations, the soil or mud of the relevant place, was not lifted therefrom by the investigating officer concerned, nor any forensic examination thereof was made. Moreover, when none of the items of one Kusum, as were imperatively required to be existing thereons, were either collected, nor became sent for analysis to the DNA expert, for comparisons thereof, being made with the evident DNA profiles of her relatives. Therefore, he argues, that the want of the above firm best forensic evidence, does make infirm, the disclosure statements, as became made by the convicts concerned, before the investigating officer concerned. Moreover, he also submits, that any identification of the crime site, and/or, of the place wherefrom they flung the body of one Kusum, into the water body, also becomes completely irrelevant. Moreover, he also submits, that any identification of the crime site, and/or, of the place wherefrom they flung the body of one Kusum, into the water body, also becomes completely irrelevant. (vi) He further submits, that it was grossly inapt for the learned trial Judge concerned, to, on the basis of the above legally infirm disclosure statements, and, consequent therewith purported identification of the relevant sites, even when it is an admitted case of corpus delicti, hence proceed to draw a verdict of conviction against the convicts. (vii) The learned senior counsel further argues, that no reliance can be made, upon the results of polygraph test, as became conducted, upon convicts Rajbir, and, Rajinder. The reason(s) which he assigns for making the above submission, become rested, upon the factum, that even if the said test was conducted, in pursuance to the scribed consent, being made by them, to the learned trial Judge concerned, besides when the result of the said test was adversarial to the accused concerned. However, yet he argues, that since to the above results, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Selvi and others versus State of Karnataka, reported in 2010(2) RCR (Criminal), 896 has not assigned the assured pedestal of theirs comprising the worthiest substantive evidence. Therefore, no sanctity can be assigned to the said results of the polygraph test, as made upon the convict(s) concerned, especially when in respect whereof knowledge may have been purveyed to the examiner concerned, by the investigating officer concerned. (viii) Furthermore, he submits, that since prior to the said consent of the convicts concerned, being obtained for theirs undertaking the polygraph test, the investigating officer had already recorded their signatured disclosure statements, and, had also caused, consequent therewith recoveries. Therefore, it is but natural, that the examiner of the polygraph test was influenced not only by the signatured disclosure statements, but also by the consequent therewith recoveries, besides also from an intimation in respect thereof, being conveyed to the examiner concerned, by the investigating officer concerned. Submissions of the learned State counsel 23. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before this Court, that the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith order of sentence(s) (supra), as become imposed upon the convict, is well merited, as the same is based upon a sound, and, merit-worthy appreciation of evidence, adduced by the prosecution, against them. Submissions of the learned State counsel 23. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before this Court, that the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith order of sentence(s) (supra), as become imposed upon the convict, is well merited, as the same is based upon a sound, and, merit-worthy appreciation of evidence, adduced by the prosecution, against them. Therefore, he has argued that the instant appeals, as preferred by the convicts, be dismissed. Circumstantial evidence based case Section 106 of the Act being inaptly drawn against the convicts 24. The instant case is definitely rested, upon circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the prosecution was under a bounden legal obligation, to prove each of the links in the chain of incriminatory circumstances. The learned trial Judge concerned, has primarily rested its findings of conviction against the convicts, merely upon the factum of one Kusum, rather last residing with the convicts. Therefore, hence a conclusion was also made, that the convicts were under a legal obligation to purvey an explanation, with respect to the whereabouts of one Kusum. Since the convicts did not purvey any explanation, with respect to the whereabouts of one Kusum, resultantly, the learned trial Judge concerned, concluded that the convicts were amenable for facing a finding of conviction. 25. The above made inference became rested, upon the learned trial Judge concerned, placing reliance, upon the mandate, as carried in Section 106 of the Act. Though, the mandate (supra), makes it imperative, upon any person, who holds knowledge about a specific fact, to discharge the onus of explaining the said fact, and, on his omission to do so, rather an adverse inference is drawable against him. 26. However, it is completely uncertain from a reading of the FIR, and, also from a reading of the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, that the fact of Kusum, in fact residing with the accused, rather becoming cogently established by the prosecution. The reason for drawing the above conclusion stems from the fact, that the complainant in the FIR, while stepping into the witness box as PW-1, though has spoken about his receiving over his cell phone, cell phone calls, calls whereof were made by one Kusum, from the cell phone of one Rajesh,. Thereins, an intimation became divulged to him, that she was in trauma at her parental house. Thereins, an intimation became divulged to him, that she was in trauma at her parental house. Moreover, one Rajesh, is also stated by the informant, to through his cell phone intimate the informant, that he had left Kusum, at the home of one Sarpanch of village Ranwar, and, whereafter she was taken by her Mama. The above spoken facts yet remain in the realm of unsubstantiation. The reason becomes comprised in the factum, that the investigating officer concerned, has not collected either the cell phone of one Rajesh, nor has collected the cell phone of the informant. Resultantly, and, obviously the call detail records, as emanated from the cell phones concerned, also remained uncollected. Moreover, the call detail records when never became collected, thus naturally they remained unproven in the statutorily enjoined mode. The sequel of the above omission, is that, the above spoken facts, do remain completely unestablished or remain not cogently proven. If so, even if a writ of Habeas Corpus, became preferred by the informant, claiming the delivery of custody of one Kusum to him, and, which writ did not yield the asked for result. However, the mere filing of the writ of Habeas Corpus, cannot per se lead this Court to conclude, qua the relatives of one Kusum, had hidden her or had known about her whereabouts, and, nor in case, they omitted to divulge the said fact either to the investigating officer concerned, or to the Court, qua thereupon the mandate of Section 106 of the Act becoming attracted, and, nor for the relevant onus remaining undischarged by them, the accused becoming amenable for a verdict of conviction, being made against them. Further reasons for rejecting the above submissions of the learned State counsel 27. The reason for rejecting the above drawn inference, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, becomes embedded in the factum (supra), inasmuch as the cell call records remaining uncollected. Therefore, when the facts spoken in the FIR, and, in the testifications in Court of PW-1, and, as appertaining qua an intimation being made from the mobile of one Rajesh, by one Kusum, to the informant over the latter's mobile, rather remained unproven, through the mode known to law. Therefore, when the facts spoken in the FIR, and, in the testifications in Court of PW-1, and, as appertaining qua an intimation being made from the mobile of one Rajesh, by one Kusum, to the informant over the latter's mobile, rather remained unproven, through the mode known to law. Thus, unless the above facts were proven, hence it could not be concluded that one Kusum was last residing with her parents, nor there was any occasion for the convicts to explain the said special fact, nor any adverse inference, in the face of their omission, could be drawn against them. 28. Even otherwise, the prosecution is also under a legal bounden obligation, to prove to the hilt, the charge for the commission of the penal offence of murder. In other words, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the anvil that, it is the perennial duty of the prosecution, to discharge to the hilt or to efficaciously prove the relevant charge drawn against the accused. The said duty, cast upon the prosecution, can never be shifted onto the accused, excepting to the extent qua the veracity of the prosecution evidence, being put to the test of crossexamination. Now if assuming, that the said fact was within the special knowledge of the convicts, and, even if assuming that it was to be explained by the convicts or a valid explanation thereto, rather was required emanate from the accused, inasmuch as, qua the whereabouts of the person concerned, being purveyed by the convicts, but the above would arise only when the fact of the cell phone intimations (supra), was proven, by the prosecution. However, when for the reasons above, proof in respect thereof rather has not emanated. Therefore, also there was no occasion for attracting against the convicts, the mandate, as contemplated in Section 106 of the Act, as attracting the same against them, has definitely taken them by surprise, nor hence they were ever facilitated to lead evidence in denial to the drawings of the above inference, and, imperatively prior or even subsequent to the said fact, being put to them. Resultantly, the above takings by surprise of the convicts, has militated against the principle of fair trial. Signatured disclosure statements as made by the convicts 29. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the convict Kulvinder, to which Ex. P4 is assigned, is ad verbatim reproduced hereinafter. Resultantly, the above takings by surprise of the convicts, has militated against the principle of fair trial. Signatured disclosure statements as made by the convicts 29. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the convict Kulvinder, to which Ex. P4 is assigned, is ad verbatim reproduced hereinafter. 'In the presence of the following witnesses, by lending under police custody, the accused Kulwinder S/o Rajbir Singh, Caste Gadaria, R/o Sadarpur PS Gharaunda, without any doubt pressure made the disclosure statement that we are five brothers and sisters. The eldest one is Kusum aged 20/21 years, younger to her is Rajni aged 19 years, younger to her is me, younger to me is Parveen aged about 16 years and the youngest one is Kuldeep of age 12. in the month of January 2012, my sister Kusum went in the village Chaduni Jattan in the house of my Bua (father's sister) Kela wife of Gurdyal. She returned back in our house after living there for about 4 months and without informing she fled from the house and got married with Rajbeer S/o Raghubir, caste Jat, R/o Chaduni Jattan. Due to it, my father was very angry as it resulted to insult in the society. On dated 16.10.2012, my father brought Kusum back after giving an application in the police station-Shabad, and brought her in the house of my maternal uncle (Mama) in the village Margaina (Ganjogarhi). On dt.30.10.12, my father brought Kusum back into our house. On dt. 30.10.12 at about 7:30 PM in the evening, he told me and Parveen to kill Kusum. We refused but my father, did not agree. We all family went to sleep after taking meal. Then at about 12 in the night, he got me and Parveen awakened. 1, my mother, father, brother Parveen and Kuldeep were in one room, and in second room there were Kusum and Rajni. My father awaked Rajni and sent her into the other room and said her to go to sleep. Then as my father directed, 1 held Kusum's legs. Parveen held the hands and gagged the mouth. My father put the rope having the knot into the neck of Kusum while she was sleeping and pulled the rope from both ends and continued to pull untill she took last breath. My father had dug a pit already in the room meant for straw-husk after when we went to sleep. Parveen held the hands and gagged the mouth. My father put the rope having the knot into the neck of Kusum while she was sleeping and pulled the rope from both ends and continued to pull untill she took last breath. My father had dug a pit already in the room meant for straw-husk after when we went to sleep. Then we all three picked up Kusum and buried her into that pit and then after burring the dead-body, we went to sleep. After two days on dt. 02.10.12, father used to say the children would be frightened here, would take out the dead-body. Then on 02.10.12, my father made a phonecall to my mama Rajender and brought his master Pappi Sardar's car. The car reached at about 12/12.30 in the night on dt. 2.10.12. Before reaching the car, I, my brother Parveen and father Rajbeer, we all three took the dead-body out of the pit and put into a jute bag and a plastic bag and sealed and packed with the help of board-kin on the both ends. 4/5 bricks were also put into the bag. Pappi Sardar and my mama Rajinder came in the car. Then my mama Rajinder and father Rajbeer put the dead-body into the diggi of the car. They three went taking the dead-body. We both brothers went to sleep. The rope with which Kusum was murdered by strangulated, my father burnt that rope and its ashes were thrown outside. We concealed this fact in the village till today. They have made the mistake. The place where she had been murdered while sleeping on the cot and the place where the dead-body was buried in the pit, I can demarcated those two places. The disclosure statement of the accused got written down on which the accused and the witnesses signed.' 30. In pursuance to his signatured disclosure statement, convict Kulvinder, through memo Ex. P-5, got identified the place of occurrence, and, also got identified the place where the dead body of one Kusum was buried. 31. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the convict Rajbir, to which Ex. P7 is assigned, is ad verbatim reproduced hereinafter. In pursuance to his signatured disclosure statement, convict Kulvinder, through memo Ex. P-5, got identified the place of occurrence, and, also got identified the place where the dead body of one Kusum was buried. 31. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the convict Rajbir, to which Ex. P7 is assigned, is ad verbatim reproduced hereinafter. 'In the presence of the following witnesses, the accused in the aforesaid case Rajbeer S/o Kartara Ran, Caste Gadaria R/o Sadarpur, without any fear & pressure made the disclosure statement that "the disclosure statement I had given on dt. 08.01.13 that was partly correct by stating that Kusum was thrown into the canal and rest of the statement was false and gave to save my brother-in-law Rajinder, Pappi @ Surinder S/o Dara Singh, R/o Nagla Farm and my two sons Parveen and Kulwinder and falsely. In fact, the truth is such that on dt.30.10.2012, I brought Kusum at Sadarpur in my house with the intention to kill her. In the night, I disclosed to both of my sons Parveen and Kulwinder about killing. We went to sleep after taking the meal etc. and a pit had already been dug in the rear room meant for husk straw for the purpose of burying Kusum. At about 12 in the night, 1 got my both of the sons wake up silently. In one room, my both daughters Kusum and Rajni were sleeping. In other room, I, my wife Sunita, my all three sons and the youngest one Kuldeep was also sleeping. We got Rajni awaked and sent her into the other room. I, my sons Parveen and Kulwinder all three caught Kusum held while sleeping on the cot. Kulwinder held both legs, Parveen held both the hands. I put a rope having the knot into the neck of Kusum and strangulated forcely and pulled until she took last breath. I continued to press and pulled the rope hard and killed Kusum. We all three put up the dead-body of Kusum and buried the dead-body in the pit in the room meant for strawhusk and we went to sleep. Next day, I got prepare to go to the rally in Rewari. On dt. 01.10.2012, 1 went to the Chautala Sahab's rally at Rewari. Then in the night of 02.10.12. I reached at village Ganjogarhi to my brother-in-law Rajinder and brought a car for saying some purpose. Next day, I got prepare to go to the rally in Rewari. On dt. 01.10.2012, 1 went to the Chautala Sahab's rally at Rewari. Then in the night of 02.10.12. I reached at village Ganjogarhi to my brother-in-law Rajinder and brought a car for saying some purpose. My brother-in-low brought the car who was working as a servant to Pappi Sardar R/o Nagla Farm. At about 12 PM in the night of 2.10.12, my brother-in-law Rajinder reached at our house with Pappi Sardar who was driving the car. I and my both sons Parveen and Kulwinder took out of the pit the dead-body of Kusum and packed into two bags with some bricks. Then Pappi Sardar stood near the car outside of our gate. Then I and Rajinder put the dead body into the diggi of the car. I disclosed whole the facts to Rajinder, Pappi had not been disclosed anything. We all three started moving into the car. Pappi was driving the car. Rajinder was sitting on the front seat and I was sitting on the rear seat. We brought the car near the Ranwar Bridge on Madhuban's side at the river of Madhuban. After opening the diggi of the car and taking out of the dead-body all we three threw into the canal. All the fact's about the dead-body we told Pappi at the track of the canal and we all conspired not to disclosed this to anyone else. 1 can get the place of occurrence where I and both my sons Parveen and Kulwinder killed Kusum on the cot and the room wherein the pit was dug out and the dead-body had been buried for two days and the track of the Madhuban's canal from where the dead-body was thrown into the canal. I can also identify the dead-body of Kusum by the photographs if taken by the police on the foregoing branches Munak Head, Sirsa Branch, Hansi Branch, Delhi-Rohtak Branch and all the Heads. I can identify her clothes etc. I can also identify the dead-body which was thrown into the canal after packing into the bag with bricks if the same is taken out of the canal by the divers. That the disclosure statement of the accused got written down. The accused and witnesses signed over the memo. The memo got completed.' 32. In pursuance to his signatured disclosure statement, convict Rajbir, through memo Ex. That the disclosure statement of the accused got written down. The accused and witnesses signed over the memo. The memo got completed.' 32. In pursuance to his signatured disclosure statement, convict Rajbir, through memo Ex. P-28, got identified the place of occurrence, and, through memo Ex. P-29, he also got identified the place where the dead body of one Kusum was buried. Vide memo Ex. P-31, he also got identified the place from where the dead body of Kusum had been thrown into a water body. 33. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the convict Rajinder, to which Ex. P8 is assigned, is ad verbatim reproduced hereinafter. 'In the presence of the following witnesses, the accused in the aforesaid case Rajinder S/o Raghbir Singh, without any fear & pressure made the disclosure statement that -I am having four sisters, out of which one sister Sunita is married with 'Rajbeer S/o Kartara Ram in the village Sadarpur, PS Gharaunda. She is having five children. The eldest one is Kusum of 20 years. In the month of July 2012, Kusum went to the house of her Bua Kela wife of Gurdyal R/o Chaduni Jattan, where she lived for about 4 months. Kusum got married there with Karambir S/o Raghbir Singh, Jat, R/o Chaduni Jattan, against the consent of her father. On dt. 16.10.12, we brought Kusum back after giving an application in the police station Shahabad and then Kusum started to live in our house in village Ganjogarhi Margain. On dt.30.10.12, Kusum's father Rajbeer brought Kusum at his house in the village Sadarpur. On dt.2.11.12, my Jija Rajbeer phoned me and stated me that it is very urgent work, Pappi Sardar, whose I am the servant, bring his car and reach at 12 in the night in the house at Sadarpur, and tell the work after reaching there. I reached in village Sadarpur at about 12 PM in the night in the Car No. HR02L-7733 as to which Surinder @ Pappi s/o Dara Singh, Jatt Sikh, R/o Nagla Sikh was driving the car. My Jija Rajbeer stated me that I and my sons Parveen and Kalvinder, all three killed Kusum by strangulated her at the night of dt. 30.10.12 and buried her in the pit after digging the same in the rear room meant for straw-husk; that has been taken out of the pit and sealed in the bag today. My Jija Rajbeer stated me that I and my sons Parveen and Kalvinder, all three killed Kusum by strangulated her at the night of dt. 30.10.12 and buried her in the pit after digging the same in the rear room meant for straw-husk; that has been taken out of the pit and sealed in the bag today. After entering in, I saw that the dead-body of Kusum was got sealed into two bags. The mouth was outside, that I at once identified the dead-body of Kusum. The deadbody was kept in the gallery of the room. Pappi was standing near the car outside of the room. I and my Jija Rajbeer we both kept the dead-body in the diggi of the car and Pappi was told that there is some items that has to be taken to Ganjogarhi. Then we sat in the car. I was sitting on the front seat of the car. Pappi was driving the car. Rajbeer sat on the rear seat. We then started moving. On reaching Ganjogarhi, 1 told Pappi to move towards Karnal. After reaching on the bridge of the WJC Canal, we got stopped on Madhuban's side track. Then I and Rajbeer opened the diggi of the car and stated to Pappi that there is the dead-body of my niece in the diggi, help us to pick up the same. Then we all three took out the dead-body from the diggi of the car and threw it into the canal. Then we all three went to our houses after riding in the car. My Jija Rajbeer, my nephews Parveen and Kulwinder, all three killed Kusum by strangulated her. All this story was narrated by Rajbeer in the night. I and Rajbeer kept the dead-body in the diggi of the car. Pappi Sardar was told all the story on the canal track while taking out the dead-body from the car. Then Pappi said that the throw the dead-body quickly into the canal, otherwise would be caught. Pappi helped to throw the bag of dead-body into the canal and ve came back after throwing the dead-body into the canal. We have concealed this facts till today. That the disclosure statement of the accused got written down on which the accused and witnesses signed. Pappi helped to throw the bag of dead-body into the canal and ve came back after throwing the dead-body into the canal. We have concealed this facts till today. That the disclosure statement of the accused got written down on which the accused and witnesses signed. I can get the track of the canal demarcated and can get the car recovered from my sister's house at villge Sadarpur.' 34. In pursuance to his signatured disclosure statement, convict Rajinder, through memo Ex. P-32, got the place identified from where the dead body of Kusum had been thrown into a water body. 35. The signatured disclosure statement, as made by the convict Surinder @ Pappi, to which Ex. P-9 is assigned, is ad verbatim reproduced hereinafter. 'In the presence of the following witnesses, the accused in the aforesaid case Surinder @ Pappi S/o Dara Singh, Jat Sikh, R/o Nagla Farm, without any fear & pressure made the disclosure statement that "in the night of dt. 02.11.12, my servant Rajinder S/o Raghbir Singh Gadaria, R/o Margain (Ganjogarhi) told that he has received a phonecall from his Jija (Brother-in-law) Rajbeer S/o Kartara Ram Gadaria, R/o Sadarpur to the effect that he has a very urgent work, come in the house at village Sadarpur on my car. On which, 1, on saying by my servant Rajinder, on my car No. HR02L-7733 white coloured Maruti' reached in the house of Rajbeer at about 12 in the night in village Sadarpur. Rajinder said me, "you stand near the car. I stood near my car in front of the gate of Rajbeer. Then Rajbeer and Rajinder put a bag duly sewed and having much weight and a bit of smelling out, in the diggi of any car after opening the same; stated me to move fast. Rajbeer sat on the rear seat and Rajinder sat on the frontseat. I drove my own car and we moved. When we reached near the Ganjogarhi, then Rajbeer asked to move to Karnal, car got stopped at the track of the WJC Canal near Ranwar Bridge on the side of Ranwar at a distance of about 15 paces. Both of them opened the car's diggi and told me that there is the dead-body of Kusum, the daughter of Rajbeer. Kusum got married against our wish with a jat boy, due to which we faced a lot of insult in the society. Both of them opened the car's diggi and told me that there is the dead-body of Kusum, the daughter of Rajbeer. Kusum got married against our wish with a jat boy, due to which we faced a lot of insult in the society. Then we all three took the dead body out of the diggi of the car and threw it into the canal and went to sleep after coming into our own houses. No one saw us over there. Till today, we have concealed this fact and not let anyone else to know it. He does not know who murdered Kusum. He is involved in the disposal of the dead- body and throwing the dead-body into the canal after opening the diggi of the car. The car No. HR02L-7733 white coloured Maruti 800 has been produced before you, that has been used for bringing the dead-body of Kusum and from which we all three threw the dead-body of Kusum into the canal. I can demarcate the house of Rajbeer S/o Kartara Bam, Caste Gadaria, R/o Sadarpur from where we brought the dead-body of Kusum and the Patri(Track) of the canal from where the dead-body was crown into the canal near the Ranwar Bridge. He does not know where is the dead-body now.' 36. In pursuance to his signatured disclosure statement, convict Surinder Singh @ Pappi, through memo Ex P-12 got identified the place where he had parked his car, and, from where the dead body was put thereins. Moreover, through memo Ex. P-13, he also got the place identified where the dead body of Kusum had been thrown into a water body. Reasons for rejecting the placing of reliance upon the above memos 37. Though, the respectively made disclosure statements, rather by the convicts, and, as embodied in the hereinabove exhibits, do contain their admitted signatures. Moreover, though in pursuance thereof, the identification of the crime site, and, also the identification of the site whereins, they, after murdering one Kusum, had purportedly buried, and, concealed her dead body, rather did occur. 38. Nonetheless, the further reason for not placing of reliance thereons, is comprised in the factum, that the convicts concerned, identified the pit, whereins they after murdering one Kusum, had buried her, but the mud of the pit never became collected. The result of the above omission is grave. 38. Nonetheless, the further reason for not placing of reliance thereons, is comprised in the factum, that the convicts concerned, identified the pit, whereins they after murdering one Kusum, had buried her, but the mud of the pit never became collected. The result of the above omission is grave. The reason for drawing the above conclusion is but simple, inasmuch as thereins did definitely occur the best forensic evidence, comprised in certain items/material appertaining to one Kusum. Thus, if the above collections were made, the DNA expert, after receiving them, hence for comparisons along with the relevant DNA samples of the relatives of the deceased concerned, rather would have been fully enabled to make the apt comparisons thereof(s). Resultantly, then he would have made a firm pronouncement, whether the fact of identification, through memo Ex. P-29, by the concerned, about the place whereinto they, after murdering one Kusum, rather had buried her dead body, was a correctly made identification. Since the above soil or mud of the pit concerned, has remained neither collected, nor when it became sent for comparison to the DNA expert, rather along with the DNA samples of the relatives of one Kusum, resultantly, when he became completely disabled to make the apposite DNA comparisons, besides became completely disabled to pronounce, that in fact, it was the pit whereins, the body of one Kusum was buried, after hers being murdered. The sequel of the above, is that, the identification of the site, as made through memo Ex. P-29, whereins the convicts, after murdering one Kusum, had purportedly buried her body, is but a legally frail, and, weak identification, and/or the same is a completely false identification, whereons no reliance can be placed. Though, it is revealed, on a reading of Ex. PX, which is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter, that the items mentioned thereins, became sent to the FSL concerned. 'Description of article(s) contained in parcel(s) Parcel No. No. and Seal Impression Description of parcel(s) 1. Three seals of RP Forwarded in original to Biology Division on 19.02.13. 2. -do- It contained very small piece of carpet having soil sticked on it stated to have been taken from the dickey of the car. It is marked exhibit-2. 3. -do- It contained plastic jar having dry vegetable material of about 10 gms. It is marked exhibit-3. 4. -do- Forwarded in original to Biology Division on 19.02.13. 2. -do- It contained very small piece of carpet having soil sticked on it stated to have been taken from the dickey of the car. It is marked exhibit-2. 3. -do- It contained plastic jar having dry vegetable material of about 10 gms. It is marked exhibit-3. 4. -do- Forwarded in original to Biology Division on 19.02.13. Laboratory Examinations No soil was found in dry vegetable material marked exhibit-3 which could be compared with soil on carpet marked exhibit-2.' 39. Even though, amongst the items, as became sent for examination(s) to the FSL concerned, is the soil, which became stuck onto the carpet, existing within the dickey of the incriminatory car, but on examination(s) thereof being made, rather resulted in an opinion, that the soil, as found in the dry vegetable material marked exhibit-c, rather not being amenable for being compared with the soil found on carpet marked as exhibit-2. Therefore, even if assuming that the soil, which had stuck onto the carpet, kept inside the dickey of the incriminatory car, was but a sequel of its being carried on the body of the deceased, kept in the dickey, and, that during the course of its being taken to the site concerned, for its being thrown into the water canal, the same got stuck onto the carpet, as, kept within the dickey. However, there had yet to be a firm inter se comparison inter se the mud of the pit, whereinto the accused had hence purportedly buried the body of the deceased, with the mud which had stuck onto the carpet, as, kept within the dickey, whereins, the body of the deceased was purportedly kept for thereafter its being flung into the water body. However, there is no evidence suggestive, that during the course of investigations, the investigating officer concerned, had collected the mud from the burial site concerned. If so, the mud of the burial site cannot be said to be the mud, which got stuck onto the carpet, as, kept inside the dickey of the incriminatory car. Contrarily, it can be concluded, that the mud, which got stuck onto the carpet kept in the dickey of the incriminatory car, was but mud from a site, other than the purported burial site concerned. Thus, the report of the FSL concerned, which as above stated, is inconclusive, hence further looses its evidentiary vigour, if any. Contrarily, it can be concluded, that the mud, which got stuck onto the carpet kept in the dickey of the incriminatory car, was but mud from a site, other than the purported burial site concerned. Thus, the report of the FSL concerned, which as above stated, is inconclusive, hence further looses its evidentiary vigour, if any. Therefore, no reliance can be placed thereons. 40. Moreover, if so, even the identification of the site, as comprised in Ex. P-31, wherefrom the convicts flung the body of one Kusum, into the water body, is also a frail, and, weak identification. The reason for drawing the above, doe become comprised in the factum, that the said identification, is preceded by the signatured disclosure statements, as made by the convicts concerned, whereins, there is a confession of guilt by them, but again rather the said identification does become hit by the bar, as encapsulated in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and/or, it is a simpliciter or bald confession of guilt, and/or the same is inadmissible in evidence. The reason is but simple, inasmuch as, when prior thereto the body of one Kusum was buried in a pit, which became identified through memo Ex. P-29, by the convicts concerned, but when for reasons (supra), the soil or earth of the pit remained uncollected, which, as above stated, resulted in non-emergence of the best forensic evidence hence to succor the fact of a correct identification of the relevant site, as made through Ex. P-29, rather being made by the convicts. Thus, the subsequent thereto fact, qua the convicts flinging the body of one Kusum into a water body, is also to be concluded to be a sheer manipulation or an engineered stratagem deployed by the investigating officer concerned, to falsely implicate the accused. 41. P-29, rather being made by the convicts. Thus, the subsequent thereto fact, qua the convicts flinging the body of one Kusum into a water body, is also to be concluded to be a sheer manipulation or an engineered stratagem deployed by the investigating officer concerned, to falsely implicate the accused. 41. Since convict Surinder @ Pappi, in his signatured disclosure statement, has stated that the car recovered, at his instance, was used by the convicts to carry thereins the body of the deceased, rather to the banks of the water body, wherefrom it became flung into the water body by the convicts, besides has also stated, that, at the relevant stage, he was present along with the convicts, but when in respect of charges drawn against him for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 365, 302 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC, he has been acquitted, but only a verdict of conviction has been made against him in respect of an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. Moreover, when the verdict of acquittal, as made upon him, in respect of charges drawn against him, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 365, 302 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC, has not led the State to file an appeal before this Court. Thus, it has to be concluded that the State, does also concede, the factum of the legal frailty of the signatured disclosure statement, as made by the convict concerned, conveying thereins the factum of user by him along with the co-accused concerned, of the car seized through memo Ex. P-10, inasmuch as, for theirs thereins taking the dead body of the deceased concerned, to the relevant banks of the water body, wherefrom it became flung into the water body concerned. If so, the signatured disclosure statement(supra), as made by the convict concerned, who has been convicted only qua a charge drawn against him, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, and has also been sentenced, in the manner above stated, is also to be concluded, to become conceded by the prosecution, to be suffering from a legal frailty conspicuously, rather even qua the other co-convicts concerned. Thus, the above fact becomes completely feeble, resulting in no reliance being placed thereons. Thus, the above fact becomes completely feeble, resulting in no reliance being placed thereons. Therefore, the identification of the relevant site does not comprise any cogent incriminatory link(s) in the chain of circumstances, as becomes erected by the prosecution against the convicts. 42. Fortifying impetus to the above made conclusion, stems from the fact, that prior thereto, as admitted by PW-5, and, PW-12, in their respectively made testifications, rather theirs visiting the crime site. Thus it is but natural, that when they had prior knowledge of the crime site, or of the crime event, therefore, it was but always possible for the investigating officer concerned, to facilely draw the disclosure statements of the convicts, with mentioning thereins of the crime site. Resultantly, when even otherwise the identification of the crime site, through a disclosure statement, made by the convict concerned, to hence hold evidentiary worth, does require, that the said crime site is exclusively within the knowledge of the convict concerned, and, that the location of the said crime site, imperatively prior thereto, is not within the knowledge of the investigating officer concerned. Contrarily, when the place of occurrence was evidently earlier known to the investigating officer concerned, or the location of the crime site was earlier within the knowledge of the investigating officer concerned, and/or, prior to the disclosure statements, being made at the instance of the convicts concerned. Therefore, the rule (supra), contemplating that the identification of the crime site, by the convict concerned, rather holding vigour, only when the said site is known exclusively to the accused, and, not to the investigating officer concerned, hence does get whittled down. Thus, no evidentiary sanctity is to be assigned to the signatured disclosure statements, as made by the convicts concerned, about their willingness to get identified the crime site, and, nor, as above stated, any consequent therewith recoveries, are of any evidentiary worth. 43. The result of the above discussion is that, since evidently it is a case of corpus delicti, therefore, the reliance, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, upon, the above legally unworthy piece(s) of evidence, was grossly inapt. It is but natural, that the charges drawn against the accused for theirs committing the murder of one Kusum, does get staggered as well as get capsized. Polygraph test 44. It is but natural, that the charges drawn against the accused for theirs committing the murder of one Kusum, does get staggered as well as get capsized. Polygraph test 44. Though, convicts Rajinder, and, Rajbir, did purvey, their consent before the learned Magistrate concerned, for theirs undertaking the polygraph test. Moreover, though the result of the polygraph test was adversarial to both of them. However, this Court refrains from placing any reliance, upon the result of the polygraph test. The primary reason for doing so, is comprised in the directions, made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case (supra) directions whereof are carried in paragraph 223 thereof, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. Thereins, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set-forth the guidelines regulating the conditions for conducting Polygraph/Narco analysis tests, upon the convicts/accused concerned. '223. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted, in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The National Human Rights Commission had published 'Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused' in 2000. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the 'Narcoanalysis technique' and the 'Brain Electrical Activation Profile' test. The text of these guidelines has been reproduced below: (i) No Lie Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test. The text of these guidelines has been reproduced below: (i) No Lie Detector Tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test. (ii) If the accused volunteers for a Lie Detector Test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer. (iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. (iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer. (v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a 'confessional' statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police. (vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation. (vii) The actual recording of the Lie Detector Test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer. (viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.' 45. Since, though in compliance with the mandate (supra), as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the accused concerned, had made their consent for theirs undertaking the relevant test before the expert concerned, but yet when it is also explicitly pronounced, in the hereinabove extracted guidelines, that the said consent would be a worthy consent or a legally sound consent, only when prior thereto, the accused is permitted to access his Lawyer, for the latter explaining to him the physical, emotional, and, legal implications thereof. However, when there is no material on record to suggest, that prior to the accused (supra), meteing their consent to undergo the polygraph test, theirs being permitted to access their Lawyer to enable the latter to explain to them the physical, emotional, and, legal implications thereof. Resultantly, the consent, if any purveyed by the accused (supra) to undertake the polygraph test, is in palpable violation of the hereinabove referred guidelines, and, the consequence thereof is that, any adversarial result, as made against them, and, as embodied in Ex. Resultantly, the consent, if any purveyed by the accused (supra) to undertake the polygraph test, is in palpable violation of the hereinabove referred guidelines, and, the consequence thereof is that, any adversarial result, as made against them, and, as embodied in Ex. PZ/2, does also become not amenable for assigning any evidentiary vigour thereto. 46. Even otherwise, it has been pronounced in a verdict of this Court, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. D-1290-DB of 2014, titled as Suman versus Ram Mehar and others, decided on 30.10.2015, that the result of the polygraph test, even if is adversarial to the accused, yet it does not comprise substantive evidence. 47. Resultantly, when the result of the polygraph test, as made upon the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence, thus no reliance can be placed thereons. The preponderant reason for inferring so, is strengthened from the factum, qua prior thereto the convicts concerned, rather making their infirm signatured disclosure statements, and, also thereafter theirs causing the above referred inapt recoveries/discoveries. The reason for making the above inference flows from the reasons assigned hereinabove, whereins, the said disclosure statements, as well as the consequent therewith discoveries, have been concluded to be suffering from a blemish or a taint of theirs becoming engineered, by a stratagem deployed by the investigating officer concerned. Therefore, the subsequent thereto conducted any successful polygraph test, upon the convicts concerned, is also to be concluded to be a sequel, of the investigating officer, purveying an intimation to the expert concerned, about the accused confessing their guilt. The reason for drawing the above conclusion arises from the factum, that the author of Ex. PZ/2, rather never stepping into the witness box to prove the polygraph test result, nor his being cross-examined, to enable the convicts concerned, to put suggestions to him rather to the effect, that he had been coached, or guided by the investigating officer concerned, to make any adversarial results qua the accused concerned. The necessity qua the maker of the polygraph test, stepping into the witness box, arises from the factum qua Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof extracted hereinafter, rather not making any contemplation, that the report of the polygraph test, is per se admissible in evidence. 293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts. The necessity qua the maker of the polygraph test, stepping into the witness box, arises from the factum qua Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof extracted hereinafter, rather not making any contemplation, that the report of the polygraph test, is per se admissible in evidence. 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 Inspector of- Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director, [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.' 48. The reason for drawing the above inference becomes embedded in the factum, that sub-Section (4) of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., though specifies the experts qua whom the mandate of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., is applicable. However, the polygraph test expert, or the narco analysis test taker, rather are not mentioned thereins, nor any notification, as issued by the Central Government, hence specifying thereins the above expert(s), has been placed on record. Therefore, it is to be concluded, qua no rebuttable presumption of truth being assignable to Ex. However, the polygraph test expert, or the narco analysis test taker, rather are not mentioned thereins, nor any notification, as issued by the Central Government, hence specifying thereins the above expert(s), has been placed on record. Therefore, it is to be concluded, qua no rebuttable presumption of truth being assignable to Ex. PZ/2, nor it was amenable for becoming admissible in evidence, hence merely on its tendering, rather it was required to become proven, through its author stepping into the witness box, whereas, with the author thereof not stepping into the witness box, thus, fortifyingly makes it inadmissible in evidence. Summiarization of Principles. 49. (1) In an evident case of corpus delicti, the charge of murder, as becomes formulated against the accused, does get staggered. (2) However, if the prosecution establishes all the relevant incriminatory recoveries, in the chain of incriminatory circumstances, then the above principle would not remain intact. (3) However, for denuding the might of the principle of evident corpus delicti, the prosecution is required to prove; (a) the evident user of the weapons of assault by the convict concerned, upon the deceased. (b) the above being proven through validly recorded disclosure statements of the accused concerned. (c) validly recoveries thereof, being made by the investigating officer concerned. (d) in case, there is no recovery of the weapons of assault, at the instance of the accused concerned, but when there is only an identification of the site concerned, whereins, they had consigned to flames the body of the deceased concerned, or had buried the body concerned, then it becomes incumbent, upon the prosecution to collect the soil of the burial place or the ashes of the cremation ground. (e) Further, the said ashes or the soil concerned, has to be sent in a sealed untampered cloth parcel to the FSL concerned, but also therealongwith the admitted DNA of the deceased concerned, or of the latter's relatives, is also to be sent to the FSL concerned. On the examinations of the above items, the DNA specialist has to voice, that the soil concerned, or the ashes concerned, upon theirs being matched with the admitted DNA of the deceased or of the relatives of the deceased, rather revealing an apt inter se matching(s). If, the above opinion does not emanate from the FSL concerned, then the theory of corpus delicti, as erected by the defence, rather does survive. If, the above opinion does not emanate from the FSL concerned, then the theory of corpus delicti, as erected by the defence, rather does survive. (4) Moreover, then the identification of the burial site, or the identification of the cremation ground concerned, at the instance of the accused concerned, does become, a completely contrived or invented evidence, at the instance of the investigating officer concerned. (5) The result of the polygraph test does not comprise substantive evidence but only comprises evidence corroborative to the other proven incriminatory evidence, collected by the investigating officer concerned. (6) The report of the taker of the polygraph test, does not per se become admissible in evidence, but requires the report being tendered into evidence by its author, and, the expert being put to cross-examination. Final order 50. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court finds merit in all the three appeals, and, is constrained to allow them. Consequently, all the three appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments convicting, and, sentencing the appellants, and, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, concerned, are quashed, and, set aside. Appellants Rajbir, Kulvinder, Surinder alias Pappi, and, Rajinder are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The fine amount, if any, deposited by them, be, in accordance with law, refunded to them. The personal, and, surety bonds of the accused shall stand forthwith cancelled, and, discharged. The case property be dealt with, in accordance with law, but after the expiry of the period of limitation for the filing of an appeal. The appellants, if in custody, and, if not required in any other case, be forthwith set at liberty. Release warrants be prepared accordingly. 51. Records be sent down forthwith. 52. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.