JUDGMENT ON BOARD : Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1. Since both the appeals arise out of same crime and same sessions case, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in these appeals are the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod District Balod in Sessions Case No. 62/2015 whereby the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar (in CRA No.1051 of 2016) has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 302, 397 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced as under: Offence Punishment Fine In default to pay fine U/s 302 IPC Life imprisonment 1000/- Additional RI for two months U/s 302 IPC Life imprisonment 1000/- Additional RI for two months U/s 397 IPC R.I. for 10 years 1000/- Additional RI for two months U/s 201/34 IPC R.I. for 3 years 1000/- Additional RI for two months whereas, the appellant Smt. Santoshi Nirmalkar (in CRA No.1130 of 2016) has been convicted for the offence under Sections 201/34 and 411 IPC and sentenced as under : Offence Punishment Fine In default to pay fine U/s 201/34 IPC R.I. for 3 years 1000/- Additional RI for two months U/s 411 IPC R.I. for 3 years 1000/- Additional RI for two months 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 17.04.2015 in the evening when PW-3, Seema Chandrakar, relative of the deceased persons, went to the house of deceased persons, she saw that the deceased Nirmala Chandrakar was lying dead in her house. She immediately informed PW-1, Dukhharan Chandrakar, who is brother of another deceased Komal Chandrakar. When PW-1, Dukhharan Chandrakar came to the house, he also saw that both the deceased persons Smt. Nirmala Chandrakar and Komal Chandrakar were lying dead. He immediately informed about the incident to the police at Police Station Ranchirai District Balod. Unnumbered Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/1 was recorded by the police on 17.04.2015 at 17:15 hours. It has also been reported by PW-1 Dukhharan that his brother Komal Chandrakar was in preparation of marriage of his son and for that purpose he had purchased the gold and silver ornaments. The door of Almirah was open and someone has looted the said ornaments also. Dehati Merg intimation Ex.P/2 was recorded with respect to death intimation of Komal Chandrakar and Merg Intimation Ex.P/3 was recorded with respect to Smt. Nirmala Chandrakar. The door of Almirah was open and someone has looted the said ornaments also. Dehati Merg intimation Ex.P/2 was recorded with respect to death intimation of Komal Chandrakar and Merg Intimation Ex.P/3 was recorded with respect to Smt. Nirmala Chandrakar. Inquest Ex.P/7 & Ex.P/8 was prepared with respect to dead body of Komal Chandrakar and Nirmala Chandrakar respectively. FIR Ex.P/34 was registered against unknown persons on 18.04.2015 for the offence under Sections 460,397 and 302 IPC. Both dead bodies were sent for its postmortem to Community Health Centre, Gunderdehi, where PW-9, Dr.C.B. Prasad has conducted postmortem of both the bodies and gave his report Ex.P/35 with respect to Komal Chandrakar and Ex.P/36 with respect to Nirmala Chandrakar. While conducting postmortem, the doctor has found the following injuries on dead body of both the deceased : Dead body of Injuries Komal Chandrakar Right side carotid artery cut by deep cut wound Right occipital region-stab wound 1x1/2x1/2 inch with occipital bone fractured. Deep cut wound present at right ear at lobule & extended behind it over the mastoid process, reached up to occipital bone. Multiple fractured ribs on right side. Nirmala Bai Lacerated wound approx 8x2x2.5 cm over left side mandible, bone depth with compound fractured lower jaw. Deep lacerated wound approx 8x2x2.5cm over left ear pinna, involving mastoid process of same side. Bleeding from left ear. Bleeding from both nostrils. Left eyesemi open-conjunctival hemorrhage present. Right eye closed, blacking present around eye. Face and both forearms were blood stained, both hands, palms and dorsal aspect were also bloodstained. 4. The doctor opined the cause of death of deceased Komal Chandrakar due to hemorrhagic shock due to arterial bleed (right side carotid artery cut) brain injury (mastoid and occipital region) resulting into excessive hemorrhage. Injuries are antemortem and homicidal in nature. With respect to death of deceased Nirmala Bai, the doctor has opined cause of death due to hemorrhagic shock with brain injury due to fractured mandible and mastoid and ruptured facial artery left side resulting into excessive hemorrhage. Injuries are antemortem and homicidal in nature. 5. Spot map Ex.P/4 was prepared by the police and Ex.P/27 was prepared by the Patwari. Injuries are antemortem and homicidal in nature. 5. Spot map Ex.P/4 was prepared by the police and Ex.P/27 was prepared by the Patwari. During investigation, the memorandum statement of the appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar was recorded on 30.04.2015 at about 14:50 hours and based on her memorandum statement Ex.P/16, one golden neckless kept in jewelry box, one maroon colour purse having silver anklet and one pair of silver toe ring inside a small box were seized on 30.04.2015 vide seizure memo Ex.P/18 at about 15:15 hours from the Almirah in the house of the appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar, situated at Bhatagaon, Raipur. In all the jewelry boxes “Jewelers Soni Brothers, main road Gunderdehi, Balod” was printed. From the appellant-Santoshi Nirmalkar, the full shirt, allegedly belonging to appellant Rajesh Chandrakar, in which blood like stains were there, have been seized on 30.04.2015 at about 16:00 hours from the house of Santoshi Nirmalkar and seizure memo Ex.P/20 was prepared. On 30.04.2015 the appellant Rajesh was also taken into custody and his memorandum statement Ex.P/17 was also recorded at 7:30 hours on the same day and based on it one golden Mangalsutra, one pair of golden ear stud, one pair of golden tops, one another pair of golden ear stud, one pair of silver Lachha and one pair of silver anklet (all including screw) have been seized from the Almirah of the house of the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar from village Aklordih and seizure memo Ex.P/19 was prepared. 6. During the investigation, on 17.06.2015 at about 12:30 hours, one receipt book from serial No.501 to 600 of M/s Jewelers Soni Brothers main Road Gunderdehi having receipt No.501 issued to Komal Chandrakar with respect to purchase of the ornaments have been seized from jewelers Soni Brothers in presence of the witnesses and seizure memo Ex.P/21 was prepared. On the same day i.e. on 17.06.2015 one estimate slip of M/s Rish Jewelers, main road Gunderdehi, issued in the name of Komal Chandrakar with respect to pair of golden tops and toe ring, one receipt No.419 issued in the name of Komal Chandrakar by Rishi Jewelers, Dhamtari Chowk main Road Gunderdehi with respect to golden ear stud and one receipt No.501 issued in the name of Komal Chandrakar/Nirbhay Chandrakar with respect to the fancy anklet was seized from Domesh Chandrakar who is the son of deceased and seizure memo Ex.P/22 was prepared. 7. 7. On 30.06.2015, one Bill Book from serial No.401 to 500 was seized from Rishi Jewelers in which the receipt No.419 is shown to be issued in the name of Komal Chandrakar and seizure memo Ex.P/23 was prepared. 8. During the investigation, the seized ornaments were put to identification test conducted by PW-7, T.P. Sahu, Executive Magistrate, before Domesh Chandrakar who is the son of the deceased. The identification proceeding of golden and silver ornaments seized from the accused persons was conducted at Tehsil office Gunderdehi in presence of Domesh Chandrakar and the witnesses has duly identified the gold and silver ornaments and identification memo Ex.P/24 was also prepared. On 30.04.2015 at about 11:45 hours, one blue colour jeans pant having blood like stains on it has been seized from the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar and seizure memo Ex.P/28 was prepared. The numbered Merg intimation was recorded on 18.04.2015 at about 9:30 hours at PS Ranchirai, District Balod vide Ex.P/32 and P/33 respectively. Full shirt seized from appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar was sent for its query report and query report was given by doctor vide Ex.P/37 by which he has sent it for chemical examination. Jeans pant seized from the appellant Rajesh was also put for its query report and the doctor has sent it also for chemical examination vide Ex.P/38. Further, a crowbar seized from the sport was also sent for its query report and the doctor has opined that the injuries found on the deceased persons would have been caused by the said crowbar. For presence of blood stains on it, the same was also sent for its chemical examination. Further, a crowbar seized from the sport was also sent for its query report and the doctor has opined that the injuries found on the deceased persons would have been caused by the said crowbar. For presence of blood stains on it, the same was also sent for its chemical examination. The police has sent the blood like stain crowbar Article- A, blood like stains taken out by piece of cotton Article-B, plain soil taken out by a piece of cotton Article-C, bloodstains found on the wall was scratched and its dust Article-D, plain dust of the wall Article-E, the piece of bed-sheet seized below the head of deceased Komal Chandrakar Article-F, jeans pant of the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar Article-G, one full shirt seized from Santoshi Nirmalkar Article-H, one shirt and underwear of deceased Komal Chandrakar Article-I and Sari, Petticoat and Blouse of the deceased Nirmala Chandrakar Article-J were sent for their FSL examination to the State FSL Raipur vide Ex.P/41 from where the FSL report Ex.P/43 was received, according to which, except plain soil seized by a piece of cotton and plain dust seized from the wall, all the other articles were found to be stained with blood. Human blood was found on Articles B, G, H, I-1, I-2, J-1 and J-2 whereas, the Article I-2 (underwear of deceased Komal Chandrakar) was found to be stained with “O” Group of blood and the Sari and Blouse of the deceased Nirmala Chandrakar was found to be stained with “A” Group of blood. The appellant Rajesh Chandrakar was arrested on 30.04.2015 at 20:30 hours whereas, appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar was arrested at 20:40 hours on the same day. Their arrest memos are Ex.P/25 & P/26 respectively. 9. Statement under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gunderdehi, against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 397, 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court from where it has been transferred to the trial Court for its trial. 10. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar for the offence under Sections 302, 302, 397 and 201/34 IPC whereas, the charge against the appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar was framed for the offence under Sections 201/34 and 411 IPC. The accused persons/appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 11. 10. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar for the offence under Sections 302, 302, 397 and 201/34 IPC whereas, the charge against the appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar was framed for the offence under Sections 201/34 and 411 IPC. The accused persons/appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 11. In order to establish the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/43 was relied upon by the prosecution and exhibited during the evidence. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellants have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them. Appellant Rajesh has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence whereas, the appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar have submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the offence. The police detain her along with her children for 2-3 days in the police station and have obtained her signature in blank papers after assaulting her. 12. After considering the evidence available on record, the trial court has convicted and sentenced both the appellants as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses are interested witnesses and therefore their evidence are shaky. Except memorandum and recovery of the ornaments, there is no evidence available on record to connect the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar for the offence of murder of deceased persons. The identification of the seized ornaments was also doubtful as the witnesses are not consistent in the material point of identification. The appellants were not in custody at the time when allegedly their memorandum statement was recorded by the police as statements were recorded on 30.04.2015 at 07:30 and 14:50 hours respectively, but they have been arrested on 30.04.2015 at 20:30 & 20:40 hours respectively. Therefore, the appellants were in custody from 30.04.2015 at 20:30 and 20:40 hours respectively, but prior to that, their memorandum statement is said to have been recorded by the police which is not admissible in evidence and based on it, the recovery is also not admissible. They would rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Rajesh & Another, Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2023 SC 4759 . They would rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Rajesh & Another, Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2023 SC 4759 . The counsel for the appellants would further submit that in the seizure memo of ornaments Ex.P/18 & P/19, its weight and cost are mentioned which is also doubtful as at the time of seizure it was not weighted and thus, mentioning of its weight and cost would create doubt on the alleged recovery and seizure. They would further submit that the chain of circumstances have not been completed and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without any broken link and therefore the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 14. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances appears against the appellants have been duly proved. The appellants have failed to give plausible explanation as to how they came in possession of ornaments of the deceased persons as also the bloodstains found on the clothes of appellant Rajesh and also the shirt of appellant Rajesh, seized from the possession of co-accused Santoshi. It is not a case that only the recovery of ornaments is there against the appellants, but recovery of clothes of the appellant Rajesh is also there in which human blood was found in FSL report, for which no explanation has been offered by the accused persons. Being close relative of deceased, the appellant Rajesh was having knowledge that the deceased persons are having ornaments for the purpose of marriage of his elder son. Seized ornaments have duly been identified by Domesh Chandrakar, the son of deceased. The seized ornaments were produced before the court also and therefore their identification cannot be doubted and therefore, considering the overall evidence available on record, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 15. We have heard the rival contentions put forth by the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 16. PW-3, Seema Chandrakar, is the witness who first seen the dead body of deceased Nirmala Chandrakar and informed the persons. She has stated in her deposition that deceased persons were her uncle and aunt. She resides nearby their house. 15. We have heard the rival contentions put forth by the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 16. PW-3, Seema Chandrakar, is the witness who first seen the dead body of deceased Nirmala Chandrakar and informed the persons. She has stated in her deposition that deceased persons were her uncle and aunt. She resides nearby their house. On the date of incident when she had gone to the house of the deceased persons she saw that her aunt (Nirmala Chandrakar) was lying dead in the Varanda of their room pooled with blood. She tried to wake her up and when she did not wake up, she came back and informed the persons of vicinity and thereafter she came to know that her uncle was also murdered. She was cross examined by the accused appellants on the issue why she had gone to the house of the deceased persons and appearance of the crowbar on the place of incident, but this has not been controverted in her cross examination that she has gone to the house of her uncle and aunt and saw the dead body of her aunt and informed the persons of vicinity. 17. PW-1, Dukhharan Chandrakar, is the brother of deceased Komal Chandrakar who is resident of same village nearby the house of the deceased persons. He has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident he came to know from his daughter in law in relation (Seema Chandrakar, PW-3) that Komal and Nirmala Chandrakar have been murdered. When he went to the house of Komal, he saw dead body of both of them. Then he proceeded for the police station, but on the way, he met with the police who were coming to his village on the intimation given by someone else, and he returned back along with them to the house of deceased. Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/1, Dehati Merg Ex.P/2 & P/3 were recorded by him. Spot map Ex.P/4 was prepared in his presence. He is the witness of inquest Ex.P/7 & P/8 and has taken the dead bodies of the deceased persons for its last rites. Crowbar was seized from the spot vide Ex.P/11. Seizures of bloodstain and plain soil and clothes of deceased persons were made in his presence. Spot map Ex.P/4 was prepared in his presence. He is the witness of inquest Ex.P/7 & P/8 and has taken the dead bodies of the deceased persons for its last rites. Crowbar was seized from the spot vide Ex.P/11. Seizures of bloodstain and plain soil and clothes of deceased persons were made in his presence. He has further stated that the ornaments i.e. Neckless, fancy anklets, toe rings, golden ear studs, Mangalsutra, silver anklet, silver Lachha and golden tops which were kept in Almirah was also missing. During investigation, he came to know that the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar has committed murder of deceased persons and the ornaments were seized from the accused Santoshi Nirmalkar along with clothes of appellant Rajesh. He has further stated that the police has interrogated both the accused persons in his presence and they have given their memorandum statement Ex.P/16 & P/17 respectively. Based on their memorandum statements, the ear studs, Mangalsutra, Silver Anklet and Lachha have been seized vide Ex.P/19 from the appellant Rajesh and Neckless, Anklet, toe ring and shirt and pant of appellant Rajesh was seized vide Ex.P/18 from appellant Santoshi. The clothes of Rajesh have also been seized vide Ex.P/20. The bills of ornaments have also been seized vide Ex.P/21,22 and 23. The seized ornaments were put before the son of deceased Domesh Chandrakar who identified the same and identification memo Ex.P/24 was prepared in his presence and the police has arrested the appellants vide arrest memos Ex.P/25&26. In cross examination, he has stated that he has signed the documents after reading it. He states that elder son of deceased namely Domesh was residing with the appellant Rajesh at village Aklordih and working in a company. He entered into the house of the deceased persons along with police persons and saw that the lock of Almirah was broken, but he could not remember as to whether Almirah was open or closed. He along with the police person went to Bhatagaon, Raipur, in the house of appellant Santoshi from where the ornaments and clothes of appellant Rajesh was seized. The police has also inquired from appellant Rajesh and his memorandum statement was taken in his presence. He has further stated that proceeding for identification of the ornaments were conducted at Tehsil office and Domesh identified the ornaments. Seizure was also made from the appellant Rajesh from his house at village Aklordih. The police has also inquired from appellant Rajesh and his memorandum statement was taken in his presence. He has further stated that proceeding for identification of the ornaments were conducted at Tehsil office and Domesh identified the ornaments. Seizure was also made from the appellant Rajesh from his house at village Aklordih. Seized ornaments were produced before the court on 06.10.2015 during the course of cross examination of this witness PW-1 which have been mentioned in the deposition sheet of the PW-1 also. He has stated that the seized ornaments were weighted at Soni Brother Jewelers after its identification proceeding. At the time of identification proceeding the seized articles were in sealed condition which was opened by the Tehsildar, but for minor variance in the proceeding regarding memorandum, seizure of ornaments from the appellants, their procedure for identification and also proceeded to the house of appellant at village Bhatagaon and Aklordih, nothing could be abstracted from this witness to disbelieve his evidence. He remains firm in his evidence that on the date of incident when he came into knowledge about the incident he went to the house of deceased persons, saw their dead body, the ornaments were stolen, the appellants were taken into custody by the police, they disclosed about the incident in his presence, recording of their memorandum statement and seizure made from them and also the seized articles were identified by Domesh, son of deceased Komal in his presence. 18. PW-2, Ramesh Kumar Chandrakar, who is cousin brother of deceased Komal Chandrakar and resident of the same village, is the witness of seizure memo of crowbar, Ex.P/11, Bloodstained and plain soil seized from the spot Ex.P/12 & P/13, seizure of clothes of deceased Komal Chandrakar and Nirmala Ex.P/14 & P/15, seizure of clothes of appellant Rajesh Ex.P/28, seizure of clothes of appellant Santoshi Ex. P/20, memorandum of the appellants Ex.P/16 & P/17, seizure of ornaments from the house of appellant Santoshi Ex.P/18, the purchase bills of ornaments Ex.P/21,22 and 23, seizure of ornaments from Rajesh Ex.P/19, the arrest memos Ex.P/25 & 26 and the identification memo the ornaments Ex.P/24. In cross examination, this witness also remained firm in material point that ornaments were seized from the appellants on their memorandum statement which were duly identified by Domesh son of deceased Komal in his presence and he has signed all the aforesaid documents. In cross examination, this witness also remained firm in material point that ornaments were seized from the appellants on their memorandum statement which were duly identified by Domesh son of deceased Komal in his presence and he has signed all the aforesaid documents. The seized ornaments were again called before the trial court while PW-2 was being examined, but for minor procedural variance in the investigation proceeding, this witness has stuck in his evidence that ornaments and clothes were seized from the appellants on their memorandum statement and the seized ornaments were identified by the son of deceased. 19. These two witnesses are close relative of deceased persons. PW-1, Dukhharan Chandrakar is the real brother whereas, PW-2, Ramesh Kumar Chandrakar is the cousin brother of deceased Komal Chandrakar. It has also come on record that the appellant Rajesh is co-bother (Sadu) of the deceased Komal Chandrakar. Since the witnesses are related by the deceased as well as the appellant Rajesh, it cannot be said that they are interested by a particular party and deposed against the appellants in the court. Although the evidence of relative witnesses are required to be scrutinized with more caution and care, but in the present case, the evidence of these two witnesses does not show any interest in favour of the deceased persons or against the appellant Rajesh. 20. In Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of UP, 2014 (5) SCC 509 , the word “Custody” has been discussed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 which reads as under: “22. …...The expression “custody” which appears in Section 27 did not mean formal custody, which includes any kind of surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time when the accused gave the information, the accused was, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police. This Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) 1 SCC 272 held that if the accused is within the ken of surveillance of the police during which his movements are restricted, then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance. Consequently, so much of information given by the accused in “custody”, in consequence of which a fact is discovered, is admissible in evidence, whether such information amounts to a confession or not. Consequently, so much of information given by the accused in “custody”, in consequence of which a fact is discovered, is admissible in evidence, whether such information amounts to a confession or not. Reference may also be made to the Judgment of this Court in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714 . In Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 107 , this Court held that it is quite common that based on admissible portion of the statement of the accused, whenever and wherever recoveries are made, the same are admissible in evidence and it is for the accused in those situations to explain to the satisfaction of the Court as to nature of recoveries and as to how they came into the possession or for planting the same at the place from where they were recovered. Reference can also be made to the Judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 , in support of the principle. Assuming that the recovery of skeleton was not in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, on the premise that the accused was not in the custody of the police by the time he made the statement, the statement so made by him would be admissible as “conduct” under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, there is absolutely no explanation by the accused as to how the skeleton of Diana was concealed in his house, especially when the statement made by him to PW14 is admissible in evidence. 21. Further, in Chandraprakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (8) SCC 340 , the Supreme Court has again discussed the word “Custody” in para 59 which reads as under: “59. As the material brought on record would show, the accused was in the custody of the investigating agency and the fact whether he was formally arrested or not will not vitiate the factum of leading to discovery. However, it may be stated that the accused was also arrested on that day. We have dealt with the issue that formal arrest is not necessary as Mr. Jain has seriously contended that the arrest was done after the recovery. As we have clarified the position in law, the same would not make any difference.” 22. However, it may be stated that the accused was also arrested on that day. We have dealt with the issue that formal arrest is not necessary as Mr. Jain has seriously contended that the arrest was done after the recovery. As we have clarified the position in law, the same would not make any difference.” 22. The scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in various pronouncements. In Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 (1) SCC 253 , in paragraph 23 it has been held as under: “23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya V. King Emperor has held thus: "It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant." 23. In Asar Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (12) SCC 253 , in paragraph 21 it has been held as under: “21. It is settled legal position that the facts need not be self probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. In Asar Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (12) SCC 253 , in paragraph 21 it has been held as under: “21. It is settled legal position that the facts need not be self probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. It includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence….” 24. In Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1976 (1) SCC 828 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “11. Although the interpretation and scope of sec. 27 has been the subject of several authoritative pronouncements, its application to concrete cases is not always free from difficulty. It will therefore be worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift glance at the section and be remained of its requirements. The Section says: "Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a Police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be Proved." 12. The expression "Provided that" together with phrase "whether it amounts to a confession or not" shows that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly Secs. 25 and 26. It is not necessary in this case to consider if this section qualifies, to any extent, Sec. 24, also. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The Second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The Second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word "distinctly" means "directly", "indubitably", "strictly", "unmistakably". The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the proveable information. The phrase "distinctly" relates to the fact thereby "discovered" is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered. 13. At one time it was held that the expression "fact discovered" in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact (see Sukhan v. Crown, Rex v. Ganee). Now it is fairly settled that the expression "fact discovered" includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Palukuri Kotayya and ors. v. Emperor, Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh.” 25. In Aftab Ahmed Ansari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2010 (2) SCC 583 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “40. Thus, the part of the disclosure statement, namely, that he was ready to show the place where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the same relates distinctly to the discovery of the clothes of the deceased from that very place. Thus, the part of the disclosure statement, namely, that he was ready to show the place where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the same relates distinctly to the discovery of the clothes of the deceased from that very place. The contention that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the clothes of the deceased were recovered from the house of the sister of the appellant pursuant to the voluntary disclosure statement made by the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove that the clothes so recovered belonged to the deceased and, therefore, the recovery of the clothes should not be treated as an incriminating circumstances is devoid of merits.” 26. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu, 2000 (6) SCC 269 , the Supreme Court has held as under: “35.…... It is now well-settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the Section. The decision of Privy Council in Pullukurri Kottayya vs. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the Section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.” 27. PW-7, T.P. Sahu, is the Naib Tehsildar, who have conducted identification proceeding of the ornaments seized from the appellants at Tehsil office, Gunderdehi. He has stated in his deposition that on 17.06.2015 he has conducted the identification proceeding of the seized ornaments in presence of the witnesses Dukhharan Chandrakar and Ramesh Chandrakar which was identified by the son of the deceased namely Domesh Chandrakar and prepared identification memo Ex.P/24. During identification proceeding Domesh Chandrakar has duly identified the ornaments which have been mentioned in the said identification memo. In cross examination, he has admitted that he put 9 items of ornaments for identification. 14-15 other articles were mixed in the ornaments with like characters, two golden neckless, two fancy silver anklets, one pair of silver toe ring, two golden mangalsutra, two golden ear studs, two golden tops and two other golden ear studs, one silver anklet and two silver Lachha were mixed in the ornaments for the identification. 14-15 other articles were mixed in the ornaments with like characters, two golden neckless, two fancy silver anklets, one pair of silver toe ring, two golden mangalsutra, two golden ear studs, two golden tops and two other golden ear studs, one silver anklet and two silver Lachha were mixed in the ornaments for the identification. He has further stated that at the time when the seized ornaments have been produced before him, it was in a sealed condition. He could not state about its weight. This witness is an independent witness and have duly conducted the identification proceeding of the ornaments and stated that the said ornaments have duly been identified by Domesh Chandrakar who is the son of deceased Komal Chandrakar. 28. PW-11, Domesh Chandrakar, son of deceased persons, who identified the ornaments, have stated in his deposition that on the date of incident he was at Bhilai and he was being informed by PW-1 Dukhhrana about the incident. He came to his village Rajoli and saw the dead body of his parents in injured condition. Crowbar was also there. He has stated that the ornaments which were kept in Almirah of his house was also missing. Some ornaments belonged to his mother and some was purchased for the purpose of his marriage which was fixed for 27-28.04.2015. After about a month the Tehsildar Gunderdehi called him for identification of the ornaments. At the time of identification, he, the Tehsildar and two other witnesses were there. Identification memo is Ex.P/24 in which his signature is there. Purchase slip of ornaments from Rishi Jewelers Gunderdehi was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/22. After sometime, he came to know that the appellant Rajesh, who is his Mausa in relation, has committed murder of his parents and he could not identify the other lady accused (Santoshi). At this stage, the ornaments were produced before the court and it was shown to the witnesses and he duly identified the same. At the time of evidence, a note has also been made in his deposition sheet. He has stated that silver toe ring Article-A, golden neckless and silver anklets were purchased by his parents for his marriage purpose. The box of Article-A contains with impression “Jewelers Soni Brothers”. At the time of evidence, a note has also been made in his deposition sheet. He has stated that silver toe ring Article-A, golden neckless and silver anklets were purchased by his parents for his marriage purpose. The box of Article-A contains with impression “Jewelers Soni Brothers”. Likewise, the ornaments of Article-B which was kept in a separate polythene pouche in which the golden Mangalsutra, Article-B1, golden ear studs, Article-B2 and Tops, Article B3 were there, all belong to his mother. One pair of golden ear studs which was marked as Article B4 was purchased by his parents for his marriage purpose. One pair of silver anklet (Aithi) Article B5 and one another pair of silver anklet (Lachha) Article B6 belongs to his mother. In cross examination, he has stated that on the date of incident he disclosed to the police about stolen ornaments, but have not disclosed it identification mark. He further states that identification proceeding was conducted at Tehsil Office Gunderdehi after 20-25 days of the incident. When this witness was queried as to on what basis he has identified the ornaments, he clearly states that since the ornaments were of his house and he has seen the same therefore he has identified the same. He states that at the time of identification proceeding, no any goldsmith were present at Tehsil office. He denied presence of police at the time of identification proceeding. He also denied that he identified the ornaments at the instance of police persons. Nothing could be extracted from the evidence of this witness that he, in any way, have not identified the ornaments, but false proceedings have been drawn and to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. Being natural witness and son of deceased Nirmala Chandrakar, he would have definitely seen the ornaments wore by his mother. Further, some of ornaments were purchased for the purpose of his own marriage and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that he was not having any opportunity to see the ornaments before the incident. Therefore, identification of the ornaments by the son of the deceased persons was free from any suspicion and duly proved by the prosecution that golden and silver ornaments seized from the appellants have duly been identified that the ornaments belong to the deceased persons. 29. Therefore, identification of the ornaments by the son of the deceased persons was free from any suspicion and duly proved by the prosecution that golden and silver ornaments seized from the appellants have duly been identified that the ornaments belong to the deceased persons. 29. So far as the seizure of jeans pant of the appellant Rajesh is concerned, PW-1 Dukhharan Chandrakar, have stated in his deposition that the police has seized the clothes of the appellant Rajesh. In his cross examination, the suggestion given by the defence that no seizure have been made from the appellant Rajesh has been denied by this witness. PW-2, Ramesh Kumar, have stated that the police has seized the clothes of Rajesh vide seizure memo Ex.P/28 and his signature is there in the said seizure memo. He has given a simple suggestion in his cross examination that he has signed all the documents at the time same at same place, which he has denied. He also denied the suggestion that police has not seized the clothes of appellant Rajesh. Both these witnesses have stated that the police has interrogated both the appellants in their presence. They disclosed about the ornaments and clothes. On their instances, shirt of appellant Rajesh was seized from the appellant Santoshi and seizure memo was prepared vide Ex.P/20 in which their signatures are there. In their cross examination, they denied the suggestion given by the defence that police has not seized any clothes or articles in their presence from the appellants. These witnesses were remain firm in saying that on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellants, the clothes of appellant Rajesh was seized and accordingly seizure memo was prepared. 30. In their cross examination, they denied the suggestion given by the defence that police has not seized any clothes or articles in their presence from the appellants. These witnesses were remain firm in saying that on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellants, the clothes of appellant Rajesh was seized and accordingly seizure memo was prepared. 30. The jeans pant seized from appellant Rajesh and his shirt which was seized from the appellant Santoshi was sent for FSL examination along with the crowbar Article-A, blood like stains taken out by piece of cotton Article-B, plain soil taken out by a piece of cotton Article-C, bloodstains found on the wall and its dust Article-D, plain dust of the wall Article-E, the piece of bed-sheet seized below the head of deceased Komal Chandrakar Article-F, jeans pant of the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar Article-G, one full shirt seized from Santoshi Nirmalkar Article-H, one shirt and underwear of deceased Komal Chandrakar Article-I and Sari, Petticoat and Blouse of the deceased Nirmala Chandrakar Article-J. After its examination, the FSL report Ex.P/43 has been received, according to which, it was opined that blood was found on all the articles except the plain soil seized by a piece of cotton and plain dust seized from the wall. As per FSL report, human blood was found in Articles B, G, H, I-1, I-2, J-1 and J-2. Further, “O” Group of blood was found in Article I-2, and “A” Group of blood was found in Article-J-1&J-2. From the FSL report, the jeans pant, Article-G, of the appellant seized from him vide Ex.P/28 was found to be stained with human blood. The shirt of the appellant Rajesh which was seized from the appellant Santoshi vide Ex.P/20, Article-H, was also found to be stained with human blood. This circumstance has been asked by question No.109 in 313 CrPC statement of the appellant-Rajesh, to which he simply says “It is wrong” and has not explained as to how human blood was found on his jeans pant and shirt. 31. The shirt of the appellant Rajesh seized from Santoshi was also found to be stained with human blood. The circumstance appears against them has also been put in question No.110 to the appellant Santoshi, but she has also not given any explanation of the same and simply answered that “Not known, it is wrong”. 32. 31. The shirt of the appellant Rajesh seized from Santoshi was also found to be stained with human blood. The circumstance appears against them has also been put in question No.110 to the appellant Santoshi, but she has also not given any explanation of the same and simply answered that “Not known, it is wrong”. 32. Non explanation of incriminating circumstance which appeared in 313 CrPC Statement of the appellants would be an additional link to connect the appellants in crime in question. 33. In Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (5) SCC 626 , in paragraph 32, the Supreme Court has held as under : “32. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the State on the judgment of Kashi Ram (supra) is concerned, it would reveal, that this Court had used the factor of non-explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. only as an additional link to fortify the finding, that the prosecution had established chain of events unquestionably leading to the guilt of the accused and not as a link to complete the chain. As such, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.” 34. One more aspect of the matter is that the appellant-Rajesh Chandrakar is the co-brother (Sadu) of the deceased Komal Chandrakar. After incident he must have appeared in the inquiry/investigation proceeding along with other witnesses as he was a close relative. Apart from this, elder son of the deceased persons namely Domesh was also residing with him at his house, but in none of the documents or event his presence is there. He himself has not explained that during the investigation or inquiry of the case he was present and participated in the investigation proceeding, rather the ornaments belongs to deceased persons have been seized on his instance. 35. Further, the ornaments of the deceased persons was missing from their house from the time they were murdered. It is not the defence of the appellant that ornaments were stolen prior to incident or after the incident someone has taken the same. Meaning thereby, at the time when deceased persons were murdered, the ornaments were also missing which was found in possession of the appellants. It is not the defence of the appellant that ornaments were stolen prior to incident or after the incident someone has taken the same. Meaning thereby, at the time when deceased persons were murdered, the ornaments were also missing which was found in possession of the appellants. Although, merely having possession of stolen article does not draw any inference against the appellants that they have committed murder of the deceased, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case that he was close relative of the deceased persons, was found in possession of the ornaments belonging to deceased persons, the clothes of appellant Rajesh was found to be stained with human blood and also after the incident his presence was not shown in the investigation proceeding, all these facts drag this court to draw a conclusion that it is the appellant Rajesh who has committed murder of the deceased persons and have stolen the ornaments from the Almirah of the house of the deceased persons. It is also not the case of the appellants that relation between them was not cordial and therefore he had not gone to the house of the deceased persons after coming into knowledge of their murder. 36. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable on the facts and consideration of the present case. Therefore, no benefit could be extended to the appellants by the said judgment. 37. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction of the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar for the offence under Sections 302, 302, 397 and 201/34 IPC and sentences are maintained. He shall undergo the remaining part of the sentence. 38. The conviction of appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar for the offence under Sections 201/34 and 411 IPC is also maintained. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, she being a lady convicted for dishonestly receiving the stolen property; remained in jail from 30.04.2015 to 08.09.2015 which comes about four months and nine days and also in view of punishment provided for the offence under Sections 201 and 411 IPC with no minimum sentence, she is sentenced for the period already undergone by her with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.1000/- for each offences. In default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for two months. Appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar is reported to be on bail. In default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for two months. Appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar is reported to be on bail. Her bail bond shall remain in operation for a further period of six months in view of Section 437-A CrPC. 39. In the result, CRA No.1051 of 2016 filed by the appellant Rajesh Chandrakar is dismissed, however, CRA No.1130 of 2016 filed by appellant Santoshi Nirmalkar is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 40. The trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.