ORDER : (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) : Sheikh Hesamuddin @ Kabir has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 2nd July 2018 and the order of sentence dated 3rd July 2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.191-A of 2010, awarding punishment of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/-for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act – both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Mango (Azadpur) PS Case No.07 of 2010 was lodged against unknown on the basis of the fardbeyan of Kamaljeet Singh which was recorded at about 20:30 hrs. on 5th January 2010 at Tata Memorial Hospital, Jamshedpur (in short, “TMH”), where his injured brother was brought for treatment. 3. In his fardbeyan which was recorded by Arun Kumar Roy who was the Officer-in-Charge of Mango PS, the informant has stated that his brother Indrapal Singh @ Mithu left for Brahmanand Hridyalaya Hospital, Tamolia around 5:40 PM on a Honda City car bearing registration No.PB-10AD 2693 and near Forest Nursery at Road No.15 he was shot dead. The informant has stated that at about 5:55 PM when he was passing through the Forest Nursery on his jeep he found a large crowd gathered near Road No.15. There he found the dead body of his brother in a pool of blood in his Honda City car. The people present there informed him that two motorcycle-borne assailants had stopped the car and opened fire at his brother. The informant has further stated that with the help of the local people his brother was taken to TMH where he was declared dead. The informant has informed the Officer-in-Charge of Mango PS that few persons present in the crowd had seen the occurrence and they could identify the assailants. 4. In course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer received an information that Sheikh Hasimmuddin @ Kabir and Santosh Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Dubey who were arrested in connection to Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010 on 25th January 2010 near G-Town Club have suffered confessional statements admitting their involvement in several crimes in the city of Jamshedpur. 4. In course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer received an information that Sheikh Hasimmuddin @ Kabir and Santosh Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Dubey who were arrested in connection to Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010 on 25th January 2010 near G-Town Club have suffered confessional statements admitting their involvement in several crimes in the city of Jamshedpur. The Investigating Officer has, therefore, obtained copies of the confessional statements of Pankaj Dubey and Sheikh Hesamuddin recorded in Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010 which are marked as Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-6 in Sessions Trial No.191-A of 2010. 5. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned APP has brought to our knowledge that conviction of Sheikh Hesamuddin @ Kabir in Sessions Trial No.284 of 2010 which proceeded on the basis of Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010 has been affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.63 of 2019, by a judgment dated 16th August 2021. 6. At one point in time, the statement of the appellant was recorded under sections 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was declared approver by the Court. Later on, he resiled from his previous statement when he was tendering evidence in the Court on 25th January 2018 and, accordingly, his trial was separated by an order dated 13th March 2018 and he has faced the trial on the charge framed under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, for committing murder of Indrapal Singh @ Mithu by firearm. 7. The prosecution has produced 14 witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges against Sheikh Hesamuddin out of whom PW2 Jagannath Jamuda and PW3 Jag Narayan Sharma are projected as the eyewitness. To establish the identity of unknown assailants, a TIP was conducted at Ghaghidih Central Jail on 25th February 2010 in presence of PW14 Madhuresh Kumar Verma who was posted as Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur. In the TIP, the appellant was identified as the shooter who opened fire at Indrapal Singh. The prosecution has also laid in evidence seizure-list dated 5th January 2010 vide Exhibit-10, CDRs vide Exhibits-13, 13/1 and 13/2, TIP charts vide Exhibits-14 and 14/1 and confessional statement of Sheikh Hesamuddin vide Exhibit-6. 8. Mr. In the TIP, the appellant was identified as the shooter who opened fire at Indrapal Singh. The prosecution has also laid in evidence seizure-list dated 5th January 2010 vide Exhibit-10, CDRs vide Exhibits-13, 13/1 and 13/2, TIP charts vide Exhibits-14 and 14/1 and confessional statement of Sheikh Hesamuddin vide Exhibit-6. 8. Mr. Nitish Krishna, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW2 is a chance witness and PW3 is a police witness both of whom have tendered hearsay evidence and are not the eyewitnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the identification of the appellant by PW2 would loose its evidentiary value inasmuch as the TIP was conducted about two months after the occurrence. 9. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the facts establishing identity of the accused are relevant. Therefore, the evidence of the TIP though a part of the investigation is admitted during the trial even though evidence of the TIP is not considered a substantive piece of evidence. The identification of the unknown assailant is often the main challenge for the Investigating Officer and, therefore, in course of the investigation the TIP is held to seek assurance that the investigation is going on the right path. Under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no statutory requirement for the prosecution to conduct the TIP but it is always considered desirable to identify the accused so as to put him on the trial. However, there is no time-frame provided under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act to conduct the TIP of unknown accused and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar” (2004) 13 SCC 150 delay in conducting the TIP has to be examined in the context of peculiar facts and circumstances in the case. 10. In “Pramod Mandal” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “20. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down any invariable rule as to the period within which a test identification parade must be held, or the number of witnesses who must correctly identify the accused, to sustain his conviction. These matters must be left to the courts of fact to decide in the facts and circumstances of each case...” 11. These matters must be left to the courts of fact to decide in the facts and circumstances of each case...” 11. Mango (Azadpur) PS Case No.07 of 2010 was lodged against unknown and in such cases it is quite natural that it may take some time to identify the perpetrator(s) of the crime. The confessional statement of the appellant recorded in Bistupur Case No.20 of 2010 was one clue which provided lead to the Investigating Officer to identify Sheikh Hesamuddin as the shooter. The evidence of PW14 who has conducted the TIP on 25th February 2010 at Ghaghidih Central Jail lends sufficient assurance to the Court that there was no infirmity while conducting the TIP. The identification of the appellant by PW2 and PW3 is not doubtful and the trial Judge has rightly found no substance in the defence set-up by the appellant that he was shown to PW2 in the Hazat. 12. PW2 and PW3 both have identified the appellant also in the dock and this piece of evidence has remained intact. No doubt identification of an unknown assailant for the first time in the Court is a weak piece of evidence but then if the evidence of dock identification is clear and does not admit any doubt the same is sufficient for recording conviction of the accused. In “Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)” (2010) 6 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the dock identification of an accused even though for the first time in the Court is above board the same can form the basis for conviction of the accused. The dock identification of the appellant is corroborated by his identification by PW2 and PW3 in the TIP. On 25th February 2010 when the appellant was put on the TIP, he was not known to PW2 and this is not a defence set-up by the appellant that he was known to PW2 who at the instance of the police or the informant has falsely identified him as the shooter. According to the prosecution, PW2 was present at the place of occurrence when the appellant fired at Indrapal Singh. The defence has challenged presence of PW2 at the place of occurrence and labelled him as a chance witness. According to the prosecution, PW2 was present at the place of occurrence when the appellant fired at Indrapal Singh. The defence has challenged presence of PW2 at the place of occurrence and labelled him as a chance witness. But there is no law of universal application that the evidence of a chance witness cannot be accepted to record conviction of the accused. Moreover, there is another eyewitness PW3 who has come to the Court to identify the appellant as the shooter. The evidence of PW3 has been criticized on the ground that he is a police witness. However, this is not a proposition in law that the evidence of a police witness should be viewed with doubt and suspicion. Merely because a witness happens to be the police or official witness, the Court need not start with initial distrust and is required to accept his evidence tendered in the Court as truthful. The evidence of a police or official witness is also tested on the same yardstick as the evidence of any other witness and if it inspires confidence of the Court that must be accepted and can form the basis for conviction of the accused. In “State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil” (2001) 1 SCC 652 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officers should be approached with initial distrust. 13. The trial Judge has held that the confessional statement of the appellant is not usable in the present case because no recovery has been made on the basis of his confessional statement. We would however indicate that the Court can look into the confessional statement of an accused to unearth the real story behind the occurrence. To a limited extent, the Court can also look into the confessional statement of the accused to lend assurance to the tentative opinion formed by it about complicity of the accused in the crime. That apart, the confessional statement of the appellant recorded in connection to Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010 is the source of information through which the Investigating Officer came to know that a Pulsar motorcycle was used in the crime and firearm injuries found on the dead body of Indrapal Singh were caused by a pistol. 14. That apart, the confessional statement of the appellant recorded in connection to Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010 is the source of information through which the Investigating Officer came to know that a Pulsar motorcycle was used in the crime and firearm injuries found on the dead body of Indrapal Singh were caused by a pistol. 14. In his confessional statement given in Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010, the appellant has narrated the incident dated 5th January 2010 in which Indrapal Singh was shot dead by him. This confessional statement was given by the appellant before Sudhir Kumar on 25th January 2010 in connection to the other case. On that day, complicity of the appellant in murder of Indrapal Singh was not known to the Investigating Officer of this case or the informant or PW2 and PW3 who could have falsely implicated him in this case. Sudhir Kumar who recorded the confessional statement of the appellant in Bistupur PS Case No.20 of 2010 has been examined in the present case as PW9. This witness has affirmed in the Court that the confessional statement of the appellant in the said case was recorded by him and that bears signature of the appellant. Rajesh Prakash Sinha, a member of the Special Task Force, who arrested the appellant and Pankaj Dubey near G-Town Club has also been examined in the present case. As PW8, this witness has stated in the Court that both the accused persons confessed before him that they were involved in the murder of Indrapal Singh. In his confessional statement, the appellant has disclosed the details of preparation and execution of the plan to murder Indrapal Singh. 15. This does not admit any doubt that confessional statement of an accused recorded in one case can be relied upon by the prosecution in another case provided the informations revealed by the accused indicate that the offence committed in the second case is in the chain of occurrences starting from the first case. A judgment on the point is in “State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh” (1997) 10 SCC 675 which held that confession of an accused can be proved in another case lodged against him. Bhup Singh was charged with murder of his wife by a pistol shot. A judgment on the point is in “State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh” (1997) 10 SCC 675 which held that confession of an accused can be proved in another case lodged against him. Bhup Singh was charged with murder of his wife by a pistol shot. When he was arrested in another case made a statement to the police and on his disclosure the pistol used in committing the murder of his wife was recovered. The disclosure of Bhup Singh recorded in another case was sought to be relied upon by the prosecution in the murder case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is immaterial whether the information was supplied in connection with the same crime or a different crime. It has been held that the fact discovered by the police was not the pistol but a new fact that the accused had buried the pistol and had knowledge where it was buried and this part of the confession of Bhup Singh was usable by the prosecution in the other case. 16. In “Bhup Singh” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “13. The High Court side-stepped the evidence regarding recovery of the pistol and the statement of the accused which led to it on the mere ground that the pistol was recovered in connection with another case. That other case was registered on 9-7-1985 as Crime No. 116 of 1985 against the respondent and he was arrested on 22-7-1985 in connection therewith. PW 12, SHO of Raising Nagar Police Station, has deposed in this case that when the respondent was questioned he told him that the pistol was wrapped in a bag and was buried near his house. When the respondent was taken to that place he disinterred Article 4 the pistol and handed it over to the police. 14. It is clear from the above evidence that PW 12 discovered the fact that the respondent had buried Article 4 the pistol. His statement to the police that he had buried the pistol in the ground near his house, therefore, gets extricated from the ban contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act as it became admissible under Section 27. The conditions prescribed in Section 27 for unwrapping the cover of ban against admissibility of statement of the accused to the police have been satisfied. The conditions prescribed in Section 27 for unwrapping the cover of ban against admissibility of statement of the accused to the police have been satisfied. They are: (1) A fact should have been discovered in consequence of information received from the accused; (2) he should have been accused of an offence; (3) he should have been in the custody of a police officer when he supplied the information; (4) the fact so discovered should have been deposed to by the witness. If these conditions are satisfied, that part of the information given by the accused which led to such discovery gets denuded of the wrapper of prohibition and it becomes admissible in evidence. It is immaterial whether the information was supplied in connection with the same crime or a different crime. Here the fact discovered by the police is not Article 4 the pistol, but that the accused had buried the said pistol and he knew where it was buried. Of course, discovery of the said fact became complete only when the pistol was recovered by the police.” 17. In “State of Gujarat v. Mohd. Atik” (1998) 4 SCC 351 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle, as under: “6. When there is no statutory inhibition for using such confession on the premise that it was not recorded during the investigation of the particular offence which is under trial there is no need or reason for the Court to introduce a further fetter against the admissibility of the confessional statement. It often happens that a confessor would disclose very many acts and events including different facets of his involvement in the preparation attempt and commission of crimes including the acts of his co-participators therein. But to expel every other incriminating disclosure than that under investigation of a particular crime from the ambit of admissibility is not mandated by any provision of law.” 18. PW1 Kamaljeet Singh who is the informant of this case has affirmed in the Court that his fardbeyan was recorded on 5th January 2010 at around 8:00 PM at TMH. He has stated in the Court that he saw the dead body of his brother drenched in blood lying in his car. He has further stated that the people from the locality who were present at the place of occurrence informed him that two assailants came on a motorcycle and fired shots at his brother. He has stated in the Court that he saw the dead body of his brother drenched in blood lying in his car. He has further stated that the people from the locality who were present at the place of occurrence informed him that two assailants came on a motorcycle and fired shots at his brother. In a lengthy cross-examination, the defence has elicited from him that he does not know the persons who informed him that two motorcycle-borne assailants came and fired shot at his brother. However, he has denied the defence suggestion that it was some other person with whom he has enmity regarding brick-kiln who has murdered his brother. PW2 Jagannath Jamuda has stated in the Court that on the date of occurrence while returning from General Store near Road No. 15 he saw two assailants firing at a person who was driving the car. He has identified Sheikh Hesamuddin in the Court as the person with long hairs who fired shots at the deceased. That description of the appellant given by PW2 in the Court is not challenged by the appellant. He has identified him also in the TIP conducted at Ghaghidih Central Jail, but in his cross-examination he has stated that he went to the jail with the police officer to identify the accused. He has also stated that before the TIP the same police officer brought him to the Court Hazat. He has further stated that the assailants came on a motorcycle, but he could not remember registration number of that motorcycle. PW3 Jag Narayan Sharma who is a constable has stated that on 5th January 2010 on direction of the Officer-in-Charge of Mango PS he was in search of the accused and, at about 5:45 PM, near Forest Nursery he saw that two persons on a motorcycle were trying to overtake a car. The person sitting on the back seat of the motorcycle fired shots at the car driver three times and after that they fled away towards Chepa Bridge. He has identified Sheikh Hesamuddin in the Court by his face but he could not tell his name in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in search of the accused Gabbar Singh and, that, there was sufficient light on road. He has identified Sheikh Hesamuddin in the Court by his face but he could not tell his name in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of occurrence he was in search of the accused Gabbar Singh and, that, there was sufficient light on road. He has also denied the suggestion that it was dark at the place of occurrence. In response to a defence suggestion, he has stated that he did not see the accused Sheikh Hesamuddin in the Court Hazat after the occurrence. 19. The trial Judge did not accept the defence put forth by the appellant that PW2 Jagannath Jamuda had an occasion to see him in the Hazat before he was put on the TIP. The trial Judge has held that PW2 is a reliable witness and the identification of Sheikh Hesamuddin by him in the TIP is admissible in evidence. The trial Judge has also referred to the CDRs which establish presence of Sheikh Hesamuddin near the place of occurrence. The tower location of the mobile phone of Sheikh Hesamuddin is one of the incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution which has been accepted by the trial Court to hold him guilty for committing murder of Indrapal Singh @ Mithu in the evening of 5th January 2010. 20. The trial Judge has scrutinized the prosecution evidence in the following manner: “28. On perusal of entire prosecution case and evidences available on record, it is clear that by oral evidence of witnesses, by Inquest Report Ext-11 and by Postmortem Report Ext-3, prosecution has been able to prove that the death of the deceased Inderpal Singh was caused by firearm injury in the evening of 5 January, 2010. On the point who were the persons who have caused the occurrence of firing and death of deceased oral evidence of PW. 2 Jagannath Jamuda and P. W. 3 Jag Narayan Sharma is important. These two persons have come before police as eye witnesses of this case. Police has presented these witnesses before the court and they were taken to identify accused persons in T. I. Parade. T.I. Parade of suspect Shekh Hesamuddin @ Kabir was conducted in Ghaghidih Central Jail on 25.02.2010. Witness Jag Narayan Sharma has identified accused Shekh Hesamuddin @ Kabir and Ld. Judicial Magistrate has written that he (witness) has identified suspect as a member of the crowd. T.I. Parade of suspect Shekh Hesamuddin @ Kabir was conducted in Ghaghidih Central Jail on 25.02.2010. Witness Jag Narayan Sharma has identified accused Shekh Hesamuddin @ Kabir and Ld. Judicial Magistrate has written that he (witness) has identified suspect as a member of the crowd. Likewise, witness Jagannath Jamuda has also identified Shekh Hesamuddin @ Kabir as a member of the crowd. Sri Madhuresh Kr. Verma, Ld. Judicial Magistrate has been examined as P. W. 14 of this case. He conducted T.I.P. and prepared T.I.P. Charts. T.I.P. Charts have been proved and marked as Ext. 14 and Ext. 14/1. From the side of defence, it has been said that T.I.P. was conducted after lapse of time period of more than one and half month, these witnesses have got opportunity to identify accused persons in court at court hazat thereafter, they were taken to Jail for identification of suspect. They have identified suspect because they were earlier shown the suspect in court. I do not find force in this argument for the reason that evidence of P. W. 3 Jag Narayan Sharma is clear on the point that he has not seen the accused in court before T. I. Parade. P. W. 2 Jagannath Jamuda is a simple villager who has been cross-examined at length in 16 pages and sometimes he has said that he came to court and went to Hazat. He has not said that he was shown suspect Shekh Hesamuddin in court Hazat who was to be identified in Jail at the occasion of T. I. Parade rather he has said that he identified this suspect first in T. I. Parade then, in court. Out of total 14 witnesses examined in this case, three witnesses P. W. 6, P. W. 7 and P. W.11 are Medical Officers, who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. P. W 1 is informant who proved his fardbeyan, P. W. 4 is a witness of seizure-list Ext. 2 who affirms that two fired cartridges and two pillets were seized from the place of occurrence in the night of 05.01.2010. P. W. 5 Gupteshwar Pd. has said that he heard that firing was done. P. W. 8 Rajesh Prakash Sinha has been examined on the point that on 25.01.2010 after arrest of these accused persons he recorded confessional statement of accused Pankaj Dubey. Certified copy of confessional statement of accused Pankaj Dubey is Ext. P. W. 5 Gupteshwar Pd. has said that he heard that firing was done. P. W. 8 Rajesh Prakash Sinha has been examined on the point that on 25.01.2010 after arrest of these accused persons he recorded confessional statement of accused Pankaj Dubey. Certified copy of confessional statement of accused Pankaj Dubey is Ext. 5 of this case. P. W. 9 Sudhir Kr. is a witness who has come to say that on 25.01.2010 accused persons Pankaj Dubey @ Santosh Singh and Shekh Hesamutidin @ Kabir were arrested by police with illegal firearms. These accused persons have given their confessional statements to police. This witness has identified confessional statement of Shekh Hesamuddin @ Kabir which was recorded by him. Since no recovery has been done on the basis of disclosure statement of confessional statement, there is no value of oral evidence of this witness and document Ext-4, Confessional Statement. P.W. 10 Arun Kr. Rai, I. O. of this case, has given detail of investigation and submission of charge-sheet against accused persons. In his cross-examination he has admitted that no objectionable material was recovered against this accused during investigation. Seized motorcycle was not that of Shekh Hesamuddin. P. W. 12 is Pritpal Singh, brother of deceased who has said that in his presence Inquest Report was prepared. P. W. 13 is Sunil Kr. Choudhary who has been examined on the point that on the requisition of I. O. of this case, he procured CDR of mobile numbers of three accused persons of this case. Tower locations of mobile sets of these accused persons were found in and near Mango area. These details were shown at pages 38, 43 and 50 of the CDRs, Ext. 13, Ext. 13/1 and Ext. 13/2. After appreciation of entire evidences on record, I arrive on conclusion that documents Ext. 4 and Ext. 5 confessional statements of accused persons can not be considered against accused persons, CDRS documents Ext. 13, Ext. 13/1 and Ext. 13/2 are not of much help to prove the charges against this accused. Oral evidence of P. W 2 and P. W. 3 along which get corroboration from T.I.P. Chart documents Ext. 4 and Ext. 5 confessional statements of accused persons can not be considered against accused persons, CDRS documents Ext. 13, Ext. 13/1 and Ext. 13/2 are not of much help to prove the charges against this accused. Oral evidence of P. W 2 and P. W. 3 along which get corroboration from T.I.P. Chart documents Ext. 14 and 14/1 clearly establish that in the evening of 5th January 2010, at road no 15, near Forest Nursery, Azadnagar, Mango Inderpal Singh was shot fire by two persons and one of them has been identified as present accused Sheikh Hesamuddin @ Kabir. Due to firearm injuries he died. Under such facts and circumstances charges u/s 302/34 of I.P.C. and u/s 27 of Arms Act is proved against accused Sheikh Hesamuddin @ Kabir. He is found guilty and convicted for the charges u/s 302/34 of I.P.C. and u/s 27 of Arms Act. He is remanded to judicial custody. He will be produced before the court for hearing on the point of hearing and on the point of sentence on 3.07.2018.” 21. The autopsy over the dead body of Indrapal Singh was conducted by a medical team constituting PW6, PW7 and PW11. There were as many as 3 firearm injuries caused to Indrapal Singh. The medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution story that Indrapal Singh suffered firearm injuries in the evening of 5th January 2010, at about 6:00 PM. 22. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned APP would submit that Indrapal Singh died a homicidal death caused by firearm injuries is corroborated by the medical evidence and identity of the shooter has been established beyond doubt and, therefore, minor contradictions in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 were rightly ignored by the trial Judge. The learned APP has referred to the judgment in “State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki” (1981) 2 SCC 752 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. The learned APP has referred to the judgment in “State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki” (1981) 2 SCC 752 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. The learned APP has also referred to Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra” (2010) 13 SCC 657 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while appreciating the evidence the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradiction and omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial but minor contradiction, inconsistency, embellishment or improvement on trivial matter without affecting the core of the prosecution should not be made a ground to reject the evidence of a witness in its entirety. 23. No doubt wherever it appears to the Court that two views are possible the view which favours the accused should be adopted by the Court. However, this is also a well-settled proposition in law that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court which has the opportunity to observe the witnesses very closely must be given precedence and on minor inconsistencies the judgment of the trial Court can not be interfered by the appellate Court. In our opinion, PW2 and PW3 have remained unshaken in the Court and they did not waver from their previous statements made before the police under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution has produced corroborative evidence through PW4 who is a witness of seizure of two empty cartridges and two pellets from the place of occurrence. PW5 who is the owner of Mahesh General Store at Road No.15 was in his shop in the evening of 5th January 2010 when he heard sounds of firing coming from a distance of 200-250 yards. This witness was declared hostile on a prayer made by the prosecution but from his evidence the prosecution story that in the evening of 5th January 2010 Indrapal Singh was fired upon near Road No.15 is corroborated. PW13 who was posted as In-Charge of Technical Cell at Jamshedpur has affirmed in the Court that the Investigating Officer of this case had filed requisition for CDRs and location of the mobile phones of the criminals which were obtained from the service providers for the mobile numbers 9122909541, 9709219196 and 9534210584. PW13 who was posted as In-Charge of Technical Cell at Jamshedpur has affirmed in the Court that the Investigating Officer of this case had filed requisition for CDRs and location of the mobile phones of the criminals which were obtained from the service providers for the mobile numbers 9122909541, 9709219196 and 9534210584. During the trial, there was no serious challenge by the appellant that none of the aforementioned mobile numbers was carried by him on the date of occurrence. The CDRs and location of those mobile numbers established presence of the appellant and other two accused persons near Mango and the adjacent places. This scientific evidence produced by the prosecution to establish presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence is a highly incriminating material which may not be of much help to prove the charge of the murder against the appellant but this evidence cannot be brushed aside on mere technical objections raised on behalf of the appellant. 24. The trial Judge has considered every aspect of the matter in great details and finally concluded that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge of murder against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 25. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1212 of 2018 is dismissed. 26. Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 27. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.