JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. By way of this criminal appeal (from Jail), the accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bhilwara, (‘Trial Court’) in Session Case No. 08/2014 (State of Rajasthan vs. Akash alias Jagdish & Anr.), whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as below: Conviction under Section(s) Sentence(s) Fine(s) 302/120-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-, in default of which, to undergo further 3 months’ S.I. 364A/120-B IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-, in default of which, to undergo further 3 months’ S.I. 384 IPC Three Years’ Imprisonment Rs.2,000/-, in default of which, to undergo further 1 month’s S.I. 342/120 IPC One Year’s Imprisonment Rs.500/-, in default of which, to undergo further 15 day’s S.I. 2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellants, are that Dinesh (PW-5) submitted a written report (Ex. P-13) dated 12.11.2013 at around 8:15 PM before the Police Station, City Kotwali, Bhilwara to the effect that on 12.11.2013 at around 7:41 PM, a call was received by his wife Indra (PW-7) on her mobile phone, from an unknown person, whereby she was informed that her son Hitesh alias Bittu, aged 13 years, is in their custody and that, a ransom of Rs.10 Lacs was demanded so as to enable release of the minor child; however, the said unknown person threatened that in case of failure in fulfilment of the said demand, the minor child would be killed. The said call was heard by PW-9 Vimla Suthar (sister of the complainant), who was also present there at the relevant time and who identified the voice of the unknown person to be that of accused-Ravi, and later the complainant informed about the same to his friends, upon which the complainant alongwith his friends started searching for his son, who was until then not found. 2.1. Upon inquiry, it was informed that Hitesh alias Bittu, was a student of 8th Standard in Mahesh Siksha Sadan, who left at around 6-6:15 PM for his friend’s place from his house, and that he was wearing a yellow coloured T-shirt, a blue coloured lower and slippers; he had a wheatish complexion and was about 4 feet tall, and that did not return home, and was last seen with Ravi Soni while leaving. 2.2. 2.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered under Sections 365 & 384 IPC, and the investigation commenced accordingly. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were arrested, and on the basis of the information of the accused-appellants, a dead body (unidentified) was recovered from the railway track, which was identified to be that of the complainant’s minor son Hitesh. 2.3. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate against the accused-appellants under Sections 364A, 365, 342, 384, 302 & 120-B IPC, whereupon, the concerned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-appellants; owing to the nature of crime involved, the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, from where the matter was forwarded to the learned Trial Court for conducting the trial. 2.4. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellants under Sections 342, 364A, 365 read with Sections 120B, 384 & 302 IPC; the same upon being read over to the accused-appellants, were denied by them and they claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced. 2.5. During the trial, the prosecution produced 26 witnesses and exhibited documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-84) for examination. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused-appellants stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. 2.6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2017, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above. However, accused-Ravi Soni (juvenile in conflict with law, at the relevant time) was referred for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that entire case is based on the last seen theory, narrated by two witnesses of last seen namely PW.15-Chandraprakash and PW.16-Badam Bai; both the said witnesses have turned hostile during the trial. It was further submitted that the said witnesses of last seen stated that only one Ravi Soni (who passed away during trial) was last seen with the deceased, and therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellants, in the given circumstances, was not justified in law. 3.1. It was further submitted that the said witnesses of last seen stated that only one Ravi Soni (who passed away during trial) was last seen with the deceased, and therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellants, in the given circumstances, was not justified in law. 3.1. It was also submitted that the dead body of the deceased, as per the prosecution story, was recovered on the basis of the information of the accused-appellants, however according to the testimony of PW.10-Arjun Singh (Constable), the information about the dead body was received from the control room. It was also submitted that at the time of recovery of dead body, no witness (Motbir) of the said recovery was present. Therefore, the recovery of the dead body, in the manner as stated by the prosecution, itself creates a doubt on its story. 3.2. It was further submitted that knife was recovered at the time of the recovery of the dead body, but the prosecution prepared a story that the knife was recovered during investigation, on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has planted the said knife, and recovered it subsequently, so as to falsely implicate the accused-appellants in this case. 3.3. It was also submitted that no blood sample of the accused-appellants were taken during the investigation which clearly shows a faulty investigation procedure adopted in the present case. It was further submitted that the alleged call for ransom made from the alleged mobile number was not supported by any evidence which could connect the accused-appellants with the crime in question. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be interfered with and the accused-appellants deserves to be acquitted of the charges against them in the present case. 3.4. It was further submitted that the accused-appellants are behind the bars for the last 11 years 05 months. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants, submitted that on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased was made, in the presence of the PW.8-Mishralal Suthar and PW.1-Jaswant Suthar. 4.1. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants, submitted that on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased was made, in the presence of the PW.8-Mishralal Suthar and PW.1-Jaswant Suthar. 4.1. It was further submitted that the knife(weapon) though was recovered from an open field, the exact place near the railway track as mentioned by the accused-appellants. It was also submitted that the blood stains detected on the pant and shirt of the accused-appellants, and blood detected knife, was of the same blood group, and further no explanation rendered on behalf of the accused for the same, clearly signifies the part and guilt of the accused-appellants in committing the said offence. 4.2. It was also submitted that the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.-75), clearly indicates that the deceased sustained 12 stabbing injuries, which were sufficient to cause his death. The prosecution case is dependent upon the circumstantial evidence, and the recoveries in question as well as other evidence make it apparent that the accused-appellants have committed the crime in question. 4.3. It was further submitted that the ransom call, as made, clearly shows the conspiracy on part of the three accused persons for committing the offence in question, thereby proving the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts. It was also submitted that the learned Trial Court after considering each and every aspect of the case, convicted the accused-appellants, vide the impugned judgment, which is justified in law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation against the accused-appellants is that of committing the murder of the deceased, owing to the demand of certain ransom amount. After conclusion of the investigation, followed by trial, the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as above. 7. This Court further observes that there is no eyewitness in the present case and the case is based solely on the circumstantial evidence and as per chain of the circumstantial evidence, it is expedient to have a look at the case law pertaining thereto. 7.1. 7. This Court further observes that there is no eyewitness in the present case and the case is based solely on the circumstantial evidence and as per chain of the circumstantial evidence, it is expedient to have a look at the case law pertaining thereto. 7.1. This Court is also conscious of the judgment renderedby the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033: 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence”. 8. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence”. 8. This Court observes that at the time, when the call with regard to demand of ransom amount was received, PW.7-Indra Suthar (mother of deceased) and PW.9-Vimal Suthar [sister-in-law (Nanad) of PW.7] were present, and as per the testimony of PW.7, the said call disconnected twice, but the third time the said call was attended by PW-9, whereby the ransom was demanded; PW-9 identified that the person, who made the said call, was none other than Ravi Soni. This Court finds that PW-9 also stated that she attended the ransom call and identified that he was Ravi Soni, and the factum of the said call and the identification of the person making the call, was supported by PW.5-Dinesh Chandra Suthar (complainant), and therefore, the same was clearly a corroborative evidence. 9. This Court further finds that the dead body of the deceased was recovered vide Fard (Ex.P/12) on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants; recovery was also made of the blood stained clothes of the deceased as well as that of the accused-appellants and blood soaked soil from place of incident, Moblie Phone of Ravi Soni and the accused-appellants, in the presence of PW.1-Jaswant Suthar, PW.6-Shiv Kumar Pareek, and PW.8-Mishri Lal Suthar. 10. This Court also finds that the call with regard to demand of ransom was received from the SIM Card No. 9950302299, and the said SIM Card and the Mobile was the stolen one, and belonging to PW.19-Rewat Singh Rajput. This Court further finds that the knife (weapon) was recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellants and Fard (Ex.P/44) was prepared in the presence of PW-11-Karnveer Singh Rajput and PW.12-Ram Singh Yadav. This Court also finds that as per the testimony of PW.14-Shubham Sharma, who had the gift shop, Ravi Soni purchased the knife from the said shop. 10.1. This Court also observes that there has been no explanation given by the accused-appellants about the presence of the human blood of their clothes, which were recovered during the investigation, on the basis of their own statements. 11. 10.1. This Court also observes that there has been no explanation given by the accused-appellants about the presence of the human blood of their clothes, which were recovered during the investigation, on the basis of their own statements. 11. This Court observes that as regards the corroboration of the evidence on record with the chain of events, it has come on record that Ravi Soni called from SIM No. 9950302299 to the deceased’s mother (PW.7) as mentioned in Call Details (Ex.P/82) and the said SIM was used in the Mobile which was recovered on the basis of information given by the accused-appellants in the presence of PW.11 and PW.12. This Court further observes that Ravi Soni called from his mobile, while using SIM No. 7665991255 to the accused-appellants carrying mobile with SIM No.9214543569, which has been duly proved by the Call Details (Ex.P/84) and the accused-appellants never denied their acquaintance with the said Ravi Soni. 12. This Court also observes that as per the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/74), upon recovery of the knife, the blood detected was of human blood group ‘O’ and the same blood group was also found on the accused-appellants’ clothes, which were recovered during the course of investigation. 13. This Court also observes that the postmortem report (Ex.P.-75) reveals that there were 12 injuries sustained to the body of deceased and as per the testimonies of PW.23- Dr. V.K. Chouhan, PW.24-Dr. Devi Lal Chipa and Dr. 25- Dr. Omprakash Aagla, who have conducted the postmortem of the deceased, the deceased died due to shock and injuries inside and outside the chest of the deceased and that those injuries were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature and that they cannot be caused due to falling from a height or by an accident. 14. This Court further observes that there were no eye witnesses in the present case in question, and that the two prosecution witnesses of last seen, namely, PW-15 Chandraprakash and PW-16 Badami Bai, have turned hostile during the trial, however, the same cannot vitiate the entire trial, more particularly, when they completely corroborate with other evidences, i.e. PW-5, PW-7 & PW-9 as well as recovery witnesses PW-1, PW-6 & PW-8 and the postmortem report (Ex.P-75), testimonies of the doctors, and the FSL Report (Ex.P-74) alongwith the call details records (Ex.P-82 & Ex.P-84). The said evidence clears shows the involvement of the accused-appellants in the crime in question. 15. Thus, on the basis of the above analysis of the documentary and oral evidence so available on record, this Court do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the present accused-appellants. The learned Trial Court has gone through the evidences on record thoroughly and has undertaken all the precaution while analyzing the material evidence and testimonies, which has been exercised by this Court as well and in the light of the same, our opinion is that the learned Trial Court has committed no error whatsoever in coming to the conclusion of convicting the accused-appellants for the crime in question. 16. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the conviction as well as the order of sentence dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Session Court No. 3, Bhilwara in Session Case No. 08/2014 (State of Rajasthan vs. Aakash alias Jagdish & Anr.) is upheld and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. 16.1. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.