JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned Judgment Dt. 13.8.2019 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.-1, Udaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside and appellant be acquitted.” 2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur, in Sessions Case 06/2017 (CIS No. 30/2017) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Suresh kumar & Anr.), whereby the present accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below: Offence under Section Sentence Fine 302/34 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.50,000/- (each of the appellants),in default of which, to undergo further three months R.I. (each of the appellants) 397/34 IPC 7 years R.I. Rs.5000/- (each of the appellants), in default of which, to undergo further 15 days R.I. (each of the appellants) 460 IPC 10 years R.I. Rs.10,000/- (each of the appellants), in default of which, to undergo further one month R.I. (each of the appellants) All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently as per Section 428 Cr.PC. 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 14.10.2016, complainant-Shobhagmal Mehta (PW-2) submitted a written report Ex.P/1) before the Police Station, Fateh Nagar, District Udaipur, stating therein that on the said date, while he and his son, namely, Sanjay Kumar were in a shop situated at Akola, at that time, his son received a call from one Ravi Agarwal, to the effect that the complainant’s parents were beaten up by certain persons, who after committing such act, had made a loot in the house of the complainant’s parents, and fled away thereafter. 3.1. Upon receiving such information, the complainant and his son reached the place of the incident and found the complainant’s father lying dead on bed in the room; there was a cloth noose (kapde ka phanda) around the neck of the complainant’s father and all the belonging in the house were scattered and the accused persons had taken away the cash and jewellery from the house, while fleeing from the place of incident after committing the crime in question. 3.2. 3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case bearing No.187/2016 was registered at Police Station, Fateh Nagar for the offences under Sections 302, 480 & 397/34 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 460/34, 397/34 & 302/34 IPC and the charges were framed and read over to the accused-appellants, which were denied by them, and the trial commenced thereafter. 3.3. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 18 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents for examination; in defence, 04 documents were exhibited for examination by the learned Trial Court. At the time of trial, the statement of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the evidence and pleaded not guilty. 3.4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2019 convicted the accused-appellants for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them as above. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the FIR (Ex.P/15) was registered against unknown persons, but the sole eye witness PW.1- Jassu Bai (wife of deceased) stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she knew the accused persons, and therefore, it is clear that there were clear contradictions in the statement of the said eyewitness. 4.1. It was further submitted that the statement (Ex.D/1) of PW-1 were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the concerned police authority after 14 days of the incident in question, and no explanation was put forth by the said authority for such delay in record of the said statement. In her statement, PW-1 stated that she went to the police station after 3 days of the incident in question, and therefore, her testimony was not worthy of being relied. 4.2. It was also submitted that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused-appellants was made before PW-1, and the said fact was also mentioned in her testimony. It was further submitted that in the FIR, no description was given with regard appearance of the accused-appellants, and therefore, the TIP was also not a reliable piece of evidence so as to convict the accused-appellants for the crime in question. 4.3. It was further submitted that in the FIR, no description was given with regard appearance of the accused-appellants, and therefore, the TIP was also not a reliable piece of evidence so as to convict the accused-appellants for the crime in question. 4.3. It was further submitted that the alleged recovery of the ornaments and other things, in the given circumstances, even on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants, is doubtful because the recovery witness (Motbir) PW-9 Hakim Khan was declared hostile during the trial. It was also submitted that the PW-16, Gehri Lal (investigating officer) stated in his testimony that during the course of investigation, no one has stated to have seen the accused-appellant near the place of incident in question and he also stated that no identification of the ornaments in question was conducted. 4.4. It was also submitted that at time of the registration of the FIR, no description or list of missing ornaments and money was given by complainant-Shobhag Lal (PW.2), and therefore, alleged recovery of ornaments from the accused-appellants was not proved. 4.5. It was further submitted that both the accused-appellants were inquired by the police twice, but the police did not find anything, and thereafter, suddenly the police arrested the accused-appellants, which clearly shows that the investigation was not conducted in a fair and lawful manner. 4.6. It was also submitted that as per the prosecution story, after the incident, despite the locality being full of neighbourhood, not a single neighbour has been examined during the course of investigation, nor any of the neighbours was produced for examination during the trial, and therefore, the entire evidence, as produced by the prosecution is doubtful and unreliable, and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is not justified in law. It was further submitted that accused-appellant is behind bars for last more than 7 years. 4.7 In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court: (a) Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 770 and (b) Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 242/2022, decided on 13.10.2022) 5. 4.7 In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court: (a) Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 770 and (b) Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 242/2022, decided on 13.10.2022) 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5.1. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is an eye witness to the incident in question, recovery has been effected from the appellants-accused as well as other evidence are also there on record, which completely support the prosecution story, and the same were also taken into due consideration by the learned Trial Court before passing the impugned judgment. 5.2. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the eye witness PW-1 has identified the accused-appellants at the time of TIP (Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/14) and the witness of said TIP is PW.12-Rajeev Badgurjar, who has also fully supported the conducting of the said TIP. 5.3. It was also submitted that the accused-appellants confessed the crime in question and the same was recorded in poochtaach note dated 13.11.2016 and it was admissible in evidence as per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was further submitted that the concerned police authority has recovered the Rs.10,000/- & motorcycle from accused-appellant-Ramesh; and Rs.15,000/- & ornaments from accused-appellant-Raju. 5.4. It was also submitted that due to some inadvertance, the articles recovered were not identified by the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Trial Court for due identification, but the same was dismissed, whereafter, the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Court by preferring S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 105/2019, whereupon this Hon’ble Court has directed the learned Trial Court to recall the witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, and thereafter, PW-2 identified the said recovered articles. 5.5. It was further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses remained consistent in their statements, thereby proving that the death in the present case was caused due to strangulation by ligature (Ex.P/4) and asphyxia. It was also submitted that though PW-6 & PW.8 had turned hostile during the trial, the same does not help the accused-appellants, because the said witnesses are the close relatives of the accused-appellants. 5.6. It was also submitted that though PW-6 & PW.8 had turned hostile during the trial, the same does not help the accused-appellants, because the said witnesses are the close relatives of the accused-appellants. 5.6. In support of such submissions, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Ashok Debarma Vs. State of Tripura (2014) 4 SCC 747 ; (b) Sheelam Ramesh Vs. State of A.P. AIR 2000 SC 718 ; (c) Mukesh Kumar @ Manoj kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 619/2016, decided on 28.04.2023). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the FIR was registered on 14.10.2016 by complainant-Shobhagmal Mehta, whereafter, on 13.11.2016, the accused-appellants were arrested, and the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 460, 397, 302/34 IPC; the charges under the said provisions of IPC were framed by the learned Trial Court, and thereafter, upon conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. This Court further observes that the sole eye witness of the incident in question was PW.1-Jessu Bai (wife of deceased), who in her testimony stated that at around 6 o'clock in the evening, the deceased was washing his hand and the said witness was sitting on a bed, and at that time, the accused-appellants came and tied her mouth and her hands and legs; threw her under the bed and the said witness could neither speak, nor make any movement; thereafter, the accused-appellants went towards the deceased’s room and caused his death by hanging; thereupon, while leaving, the accused-appellants freed the hands of the said witness, and closed the door of the house. Thereafter, the said witness started shouting and upon hearing the same, the neighbours came to her house, followed by arrival of her family members. The said witness further stated that when she was tied, the accused-appellants had stolen certain ornaments and other things. 8.1. This Court also observes that during the cross examination of PW.1, she has stated that accused-Raju released her hands and that she did not know whether the names of accused persons was Suresh and Raju or not at the time of recording of the statement by the concerned police authority. 8.1. This Court also observes that during the cross examination of PW.1, she has stated that accused-Raju released her hands and that she did not know whether the names of accused persons was Suresh and Raju or not at the time of recording of the statement by the concerned police authority. She further stated that the police authority had called her to police station at the time when the accused persons were taken into custody. 8.2. This Court further observes that PW.1, the sole eyewitness of the incident, has narrated the entire story with some minor contradictions regarding the TIP, and therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to look into the same, in conjunction with the other evidence available on record, including the testimony of PW.12-Rajeev Badgurjar (Tehsildar), and a perusal thereof reveals that as per directions, he conducted the TIP in jail and prepared Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/14, wherein a total of 7 persons, including one of the accused-appellants, resembling each other, were made to stand; similar procedure was also arranged for another accused-appellant. Thereafter, PW.1 identified the accused-appellants by touching them. 8.3. A perusal of the testimony of PW.16-Gehri Lal, reveals that he has also supported the prosecution version, that the accused-appellants were arrested on basis of inquiry and their confession; after arrest, the TIP was conducted and the accused-appellants were identified by PW.1. 8.4. This Court also observes that looking into the corroboration of the aforesaid witnesses, the minor contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitness (PW.1) is not fatal to the entire prosecution version and PW. 12 who was authorized to conduct the TIP, has conducted the same as per the procedure laid down under the law. 9. As per the testimony of PW.2- Shobhagmal (son of deceased), when he reached the place incident, he saw that his father had a noose around the neck, his body was bleeding and the cupboard containing the household articles were lying open, the articles were scattered, and at that time, her mother narrated him the entire incident. He was present at the time of recovery of ornaments vide Ex.P/5. This Court further observes that PW.4-Sanjay Kumar (son of PW.2) also supported the prosecution story. Their testimonies have no contradiction and fully support the prosecution story. 10. As per the testimony of PW.11- Dr. He was present at the time of recovery of ornaments vide Ex.P/5. This Court further observes that PW.4-Sanjay Kumar (son of PW.2) also supported the prosecution story. Their testimonies have no contradiction and fully support the prosecution story. 10. As per the testimony of PW.11- Dr. Mahesh, the deceased’s death was caused due to strangulation by ligatures around the neck and fracture of the first and second cervical vertebrae, resulting in pressure on vital centre respiration, which were sufficient to cause the death. 11. This Court also observes that PW. 16-Gehri Lal (the investigating officer) in his statement has stated that the report was filed against unknown persons and the accused-appellants were arrested on the basis of confession during the interrogation (puchtach). He further stated that PW.1’s statement was recorded after 14 days of the incident in question, because of death of her husband and lapse of time of 12 days taken for funeral ceremony. He also stated that the identification of ornaments was not conducted because PW.2 (complainant) was present at time of recovery of ornaments and he identified them. 11.1. This Court further observes that as per the statement of PW.16, who was the investigation officer, there was no lacuna on his part and the accused-appellants and some other persons were interrogated, and thereafter, the accused-appellants were arrested and thereupon, the TIP was conducted. The accused-appellants were arrested on 13.11.2016 and the TIP was conducted on 25.11.2016 i.e. after a delay of 12 days, but as recorded by the learned Trial Court, there was nothing, which could show that the accused-appellants were not under Baparda, rather they were under Baparda as mentioned in the remand order passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 12. This Court also observes that in the FIR Ex.P/15, the complainant-Shobhagmal clearly stated that the ornaments and money were missing and thereafter, in his statement, he has stated the same, followed by similar deposition by PW.1. 12.1. This Court further observes that accused-appellant-Raju gave information (Ex.P/20) on 16.11.2016, as per which, the ornaments, namely, silver bracelet, a golden shining necklace, a small used purse, watch on which Ashok was written, as well as ten notes each of denomination of Rs.500/- (Rs.5,000/-, in total), were recovered from the accused-appellant-Raju’s house and Fard Ex.P/5 was prepared and the said recovery was also identified by complainant-Shobhagmal. This Court also observes that the said ornaments were also identified by PW.1- Jassu Bai and complainant- Shobhagmal during the trial. 12.2. This Court further observes that accused-appellant-Suresh gave information regarding the money looted from the deceased’s house and the same was recovered, followed by preparation of Fard Memo. 13. This Court also observes that the testimonies of PW. 3-Ratan Lal and PW.5- Pankaj both were corroborated with panchnama (Ex.P/3) and no contradiction was found therein. 13.1. This Court further observes that the other prosecution witnesses i.e. PW. 10- Jagmohan, PW. 13- Mahaveer Prasad, PW. 14- Ganpatnath, PW.15- Kalyan Singh, PW. 17- Suresh Meena and PW.18- Arvind Kumar, were the motbir’s of articles, arrest of accused-appellants, Naksha Mauka etc. and there testimonies did not suffer from any contradiction, whereby they fully supported the prosecution case. 14. This Court also observes that the sole eyewitness of the incident identified the accused-appellants at time of the TIP, which was conducted by PW.12 (Tehsildar) as per the law, and recovery of ornaments was made from the accused-appellants, which were missing from the deceased’s house; the other prosecution witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution story, so as to enable the prosecution to prove the complete chain of evidence in the present case. 15. On the basis of above analysis of the documentary and oral evidence available on record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the conviction of the accused-appellants, as recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court has gone through the evidence carefully and this Court has also undertaken the same exercise, and in our opinion, the learned Trial Court has committed no error whatsoever, in coming to the conclusion that the accused-appellants had committed the crime in question. 16. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the conviction as well as the order of sentence dated 13.08.2019 passed by learned Trial Court in Session Case No.06/2017 (CIS No. 30/2017) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Suresh & Anr) is upheld and the instant appeals are accordingly dismissed. 16.1. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.