JUDGMENT : Per Goutam Bhaduri, J 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2020 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in ST No.45/2019 whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 & 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for Life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; RI for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to undergo RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, with usual default stipulations. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that both the appellants namely, Mohd. Shamim and Mohd. Saddam were annoyed for the reason that some evidence was adduced by Mithlesh (deceased) against them in a criminal case. On 7.2.2019 at about 3 pm, both the appellants came on motorcycle to the house of the deceased and forcefully taken Mithlesh (deceased) on their motorcycle and subsequently abducted him, which was seen by Ramu Kurmi, Lalchand Kurmi and Harvansh Kurmi. Mithlesh (deceased) was searched, but he was not found and on the next day i.e. 8.2.2019, dead body of Mithlesh, aged about 15 years, was found near canal at NH-43. The accused/appellants were subsequently apprehended and after recording the statements and collecting evidence, charge sheet was filed by the prosecution. 3. During trial, the appellants abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents including list of Articles along with certificate under Section 65 B(4)(c) of the Evidence Act to prove the call details. The defence adduced two witnesses. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 4. (A) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, as earlier animosity exists in between the family of the deceased and the appellants. He would further submit that so called eyewitnesses namely, PW-2 Lal Chand, PW-4 Ramnarayan @ Ramu & PW-5 Harvansh Singh are related witnesses and it is strange to presume that any independent witness was not available in the village. He would submit that according to the prosecution witnesses, the deceased was forcefully taken into motorcycle and was abducted and subsequently, his dead body was found. He would submit that according to the prosecution witnesses, the deceased was forcefully taken into motorcycle and was abducted and subsequently, his dead body was found. But in the instant case, the accused/appellants were neither present at the scene of occurrence nor have committed the offence, as they were present before the Sessions Court at Ambikapur to participate in a criminal proceeding which was pending. (B) Learned counsel would submit that the defence witnesses namely, DW-1 & DW-2 have proved the fact that the appellants were present in the Sessions Court and they left the Court after 4 pm, and therefore they could not have reached the spot at the given time i.e. at about 3 pm. He further submits that the statements of witnesses would further show that the accused/appellants were not identified while they performed the alleged criminal act and, therefore, if false allegations have been attributed, the same cannot be ruled out. He would further submit that no eyewitness was present on the spot to prove the killing by the appellants. Even as per the postmortem report (Ex.-P/23), the cause of death was uncertain. Therefore, cumulatively taking all the facts and evidence into consideration, benefit of doubt should have been extended in favour of the appellants and they are entitled for acquittal. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the statements of PW-2 Lal Chand, PW-4 Ramnarayan @ Ramu & PW-5 Harvansh Singh clearly demonstrate that the deceased was forcefully taken by the appellants on motorcycle and even one of the witnesses namely, PW-2 Lal Chand followed them but the appellants fled away and subsequently, dead body of the deceased was found on the next day. The death was homicidal in nature, which is evident from the query report. He submits that the presence of blood on the stole scarf and wooden log also remained unexplained, which were recovered at the instance of the accused/appellants on their memorandum. Therefore, chain of circumstances clearly establishes the fact about commission of offence. The impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the evidence and the documents. 7. Statement of (PW-3) Kala Kumari, mother of the deceased, would show that she knew both the appellants. The accused/appellants went for theft in Jai Nagar Temple and the deceased was forcefully taken. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the evidence and the documents. 7. Statement of (PW-3) Kala Kumari, mother of the deceased, would show that she knew both the appellants. The accused/appellants went for theft in Jai Nagar Temple and the deceased was forcefully taken. Mithlesh was caught thereafter. He disclosed the names of Saddam and Shamim and on that basis, they were arrested. The family members of the appellants used to give threat to her and demanded money to get them released otherwise they would kidnap him (deceased). The said threat was also extended that because of her son Mithlesh (deceased), they have been inculpated and they do not indulge in small matters and had given threat that they would kill her son. Motive has been attributed by PW-3 and cross-examination of this witness also does not dilute such motive. 8. Statement of (PW-2) Lal Chand would show that on the date of the incident, he was also going to his uncle’ place on motorcycle and he saw that behind Lamgaon Bazarpara near pond appellant No.2 Saddam was riding the motorcycle, accused Shamim was a pillion rider. In between them, the deceased was sitting and Shamim was covering his face by a scarf and was holding his neck. When the deceased saw (PW-2) Lal Chand, he cried for help to save him. At that time, since this witness was on the bank of the pond, he could not turn around his motorcycle. Subsequently, he turned around his motorcycle and chased them till Lamgaon temple and later he found one square and, therefore, he could not find the whereabouts of the appellants as to in which direction they had gone. In cross-examination, a suggestion was given whether the appellants were known to this witness, but he denied the same and about the time of the incident, he stated that it may be in between 2.30 to 3 pm. He has stated that the appellants had completely covered their faces and subsequently, he came to know that Mithlesh has been killed. 9. The other witness PW-4 Ramnarayan @ Ramu has stated that deceased Mithilesh is the son of his nephew. He has narrated that he was sitting outside his house. At that time, Mithlesh and one other person came to his house. 9. The other witness PW-4 Ramnarayan @ Ramu has stated that deceased Mithilesh is the son of his nephew. He has narrated that he was sitting outside his house. At that time, Mithlesh and one other person came to his house. At about 3-4 pm while Mithlesh was going back to his home and travelled up to 40-50 feet, at that time accused Shamim and Saddam came on motorcycle. The motorcycle was being ridden by Saddam and Shamim was a pillion rider. They turned around their motorcycle, caught hold of the deceased, made him to sit in between, Shamim sat thereafter and fled away. Then he shouted and thereafter went to the house of Mithlesh and informed that Mithlesh has been abducted by the appellants. He also informed about the incident to the uncle of Mithlesh. Subsequently, next day he came to know that Mithlesh has been killed. In cross-examination, a suggestion regarding his weak eyesight was given since he is aged about 60-65 years, but the said suggestion regarding weak eyesight has been negated by this witness. On the contrary, he has stated that he is able to see. When a specific suggestion was given that he could not see the object from a distance, he denied the same. A suggestion was also given to him that he has given the statement as tutored by the police, but the said suggestion was also denied. Nothing has been eliminated to disbelieve the same. 10. (PW-5) Harvansh Singh has stated that Mithlesh was a boy of their family. Accused Shamim and Saddam are known to him, as they used to visit the market. He has stated that he went to the Society to purchase kerosene and after taking kerosene, when he was coming back, he saw that the appellants were taking the deceased on their motorcycle at a very high speed and the deceased was sitting in between the appellants and the deceased was shouting to save him. Thereafter the accused/appellants fled away at a high speed. He has also stated that after some time, Lalchand came and narrated the same fact. Though the identify of the accused persons as also the deceased was tried to be shaken, but this witness stood firm on his statement and during test identification also, he remained firm. 11. The dead body of the deceased was found on the next day. He has also stated that after some time, Lalchand came and narrated the same fact. Though the identify of the accused persons as also the deceased was tried to be shaken, but this witness stood firm on his statement and during test identification also, he remained firm. 11. The dead body of the deceased was found on the next day. (PW-1) Karam Sai, father of the deceased, has identified the dead body of his son. PW-1 also lodged a report (Ex.-P/1), which is the FIR, which shows that it was named FIR registered at 5.10 pm wherein the facts were disclosed that Shamim and Saddam have forcefully taken the deceased on their motorcycle which was witnessed by Ramu Kurmi, Lalchand Kurmi and Harvansh Kurmi, and Lalchand Kurmi followed/ chased the appellants, but he could not catch them. The statement of (PW-2) Lal Chand, (PW-4) Ramnarayan @ Ramu & (PW-5) Harvansh Singh is corroborated by the immediate FIR, which was lodged vide Ex.-P/1. It is also significant to note that by the time FIR was lodged, the dead body of the deceased was not found. The dead body was found, as shown in the Crime Details Form (Ex.-P/3), near canal by the side of NH-43 and thereafter inquest report was prepared vide Ex.-P/4, which shows that Mithlesh was found dead and was identified. The dead body was subsequently subjected to postmortem examination. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/23, which is proved by Dr. Mohd. Imran (PW-9). According to the postmortem report, the death was due to injury to internal organs caused by haemorrhage and rupture of organs leading to cardio-respiratory failure. The doctor noticed the following external and internal injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- “External Examination : On external examination of the dead body, it was noticed that the body was supine. Head towards north. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. Bruises were found on different parts of the body which are mentioned hereunder:- (i) left hand of the size (a) 4x5 cm (b) 3x3 cm (ii) left shoulder of the size (a) 2x1 cm (b) 1x1 cm, (c) 3x1cm (iii) right hand of the size (a) 1x1 cm (b) 2x1 cm (c) 1x1 cm (iv) right palm of the size (a) 1x1 cm with swelling 5x5 cm (v) right side chest of the size (a) 1x1 (b) 5x2 cm near 3-6 rib. (vi) both buttock (a) right side full buttock (approx 10x8 cm), (b) left side full buttock (approx 11x9 cm), (vii) back of chest (a) 5x2 cm (4 injuries), (b) 1x1 cm (8 injuries), (c) 1x.5 cm (10 injuries) (viii) right side of face of the size (a) 4x4 cm, (b) 3x2 cm (near eye) (ix) left side of face of the size (a) 1x1 cm, (b) 2x1 cm (x) bruises were also present on both ears (whole ear) with blood stains. (xi) pattern bruises were present on back side of the size 10x2 cm and 5x2 cm. Mouth open, left eye half open and right eye was closed. Abrasion was found on right foot of the size 1x1 cm & 1x1 cm, 2 in numbers. Abrasion was also found on right knee of the size 1x2 cm. Abrasion was also noticed on the left side of neck of the size 3x1/2 cm, 1x1 cm, 2x1 cm, 1x1/2 cm. Swelling was found on the right side of the head of the size 3x2 cm. No fracture was found on the head. Haemorrhage was found on the head of the deceased of the size 2x2 cm. Internal Examination: On internal examination it was noticed that 5th rib of the right side was fractured. Food particle were present in trachea. Right lung was ruptured and congested. Left lung was also ruptured and congested. Right ventricle was empty and left ventricle was filled with blood. Mouth and Oesophagus were congested. Semi digested food was present in small intestine. Faecal matter was present in large intestine. Liver was congested. Spleen was ruptured and congested. Kidney was also congested. Middle Meta tarsal bone of right hand was found fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the death may be due to injury to internal organs caused by haemorrhage and rupture of organs leading to cardio-respiratory failure.” 12. A query was made vide Ex.-P/25 and the doctor affirmed the fact that injuries leading to death of Mithilesh may be homicidal in nature. Hence, the injuries which caused death of Mithilesh was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt 13. Now the subsequent fact comes to fore that after the arrest of the appellants, their memorandum statements were recorded vide Ex.-P/10 and Ex.-P/11 respectively. On the basis of memorandum, one stole scarf was seized from Mohd. Shamim Ansari vide Ex.-P/12. Hence, the injuries which caused death of Mithilesh was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt 13. Now the subsequent fact comes to fore that after the arrest of the appellants, their memorandum statements were recorded vide Ex.-P/10 and Ex.-P/11 respectively. On the basis of memorandum, one stole scarf was seized from Mohd. Shamim Ansari vide Ex.-P/12. From the spot where the incident had occurred, soil stained with blood was recovered vide Ex.-P/13. Another blood stained wooden log was recovered vide Ex.-P/14. From Saddam Hussain, one wooden log was recovered vide Ex.-P/15. 14. The seizure has been proved by (PW-6) Vikas Kumar Patel. Nothing has been eliminated to disbelieve such memorandum and seizure. The seized articles i.e. the blood stained soil and stole scarf with two wooden logs were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The FSL report is Ex.-P/38. As per the report, blood stained soil marked as ‘A’, stole scarf marked as ‘C’, wooden log recovered from accused Shamim marked as ‘D’ and another wooden log recovered from accused Saddam marked as ‘E’ contained blood. It was reported that on Articles ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘D’ & ‘E’, human blood was found and the blood group was reported as ‘B’. No explanation has been offered by the accused/appellants as to how human blood came on such articles. It is also noteworthy that the place of incident where the deceased was beaten to death and thereafter his dead body was thrown at different place are two distinct areas. From the place of incident, blood stained soil was recovered which was having human blood and the recovery was from open place and was not known to anybody except the appellants. The presence of human blood on the aforesaid articles having not been explained by the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. In the absence of any explanation, the same would be treated as incriminating circumstance against the accused, as has been held in the matter of Ganga Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan { (2016) 15 SCC 645 }. 15. Furthermore, a submission has been made that (PW-2) Lal Chand, (PW-4) Ramnarayan @ Ramu & (PW-5) Harvansh Singh are related witnesses being relatives of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, has laid down the principles about the difference between related witnesses and interested witness. State of Rajasthan { (2016) 15 SCC 645 }. 15. Furthermore, a submission has been made that (PW-2) Lal Chand, (PW-4) Ramnarayan @ Ramu & (PW-5) Harvansh Singh are related witnesses being relatives of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, has laid down the principles about the difference between related witnesses and interested witness. Interested witness is a witness who is vitally interested in conviction of a person due to previous enmity. The ‘interested witness’ has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rojali Ali Vs. State of Assam { (2019) 19 SCC 567 }. Therefore, the mechanical rejection of testimonies of witnesses who are related to the deceased, is not permissible. However, the evidence of such witnesses should be examined minutely. 16. The Supreme Court in Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra { (2008) 13 SCC 271 } held thus: “54. This Court in Salim Sahab v. State of M.P. held that : (SCC pp 701 & 703, Paras 11 & 14-15) “11....... [mere relationship] is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.” 14. ……. In Masalti v. State of U.P., this Court observed : (AIR pp. 209-10, Para 14) 'But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. ….. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.' 15. To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh; Lehna v. State of Haryana and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa.” 55. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.' 15. To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh; Lehna v. State of Haryana and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa.” 55. As regards non-examination of the independent witnesses who probably witnessed the occurrence on the roadside, suffice it to say that testimony of PW Sanjay, an eye-witness, who received injuries in the occurrence, if found to be trust worthy of belief, cannot be discarded merely for non-examination of the independent witnesses. The High Court has held in its judgment and, in our view, rightly that the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for discarding and disbelieving the testimony of PWs 4, 5, 6 & 8 were wholly unreasonable, untenable and perverse. The occurrence of the incident, as noticed earlier, is not in serious dispute. P.W. Prakash Deshkar has also admitted that he had lodged complaint to the police about the incident on the basis of which FIR came to be registered and this witness has supported in his deposition the contents of the complaint to some extent. It is well settled that in such cases many a time, independent witnesses do not come forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. There are many reasons that persons sometimes are not inclined to become witnesses in the case for a variety of reasons. It is well settled that merely because the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives of the victim, that fact by itself will not be sufficient to discard and discredit the evidence of the relative witnesses, if otherwise they are found to be truthful witnesses and rule of caution is that the evidence of the relative witnesses has to be reliable evidence which has to be accepted after deep and thorough Scrutiny.” 17. Furthermore, there is no eyewitness to the actual incident, but it is a case of last seen theory, as the deceased was taken forcefully by both the appellants and thereafter his dead body was found. 18. Furthermore, there is no eyewitness to the actual incident, but it is a case of last seen theory, as the deceased was taken forcefully by both the appellants and thereafter his dead body was found. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 19. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case would show that motive was attributed by PW-3, mother of the deceased that previously threat was extended by the appellants of dire consequences and on the date of the incident, according to the statements of PW-2 Lal Chand, PW-4 Ramnarayan @ Ramu & PW-5 Harvansh Singh, the deceased was forcefully taken and abducted on the motorcycle. One of the witnesses namely, PW-2 Lal Chand tried to chase but failed. The evidence available on record would show that the deceased was screaming for help. One of the witnesses namely, PW-2 Lal Chand tried to chase but failed. The evidence available on record would show that the deceased was screaming for help. The plea of alibi raised by the appellants on the basis of statements of DW-1 & DW-2 would not help them, as the evidence itself would show that on the date of the incident, though the appellants were present before the Sessions Court with regard to criminal case, but one of the accused was absent before the Sessions Court. It is quite obvious that because of the said reason, the case might have been adjourned bit early hours. Therefore, the statements of PW-2 Lal Chand, PW-4 Ramnarayan @ Ramu & PW-5 Harvansh Singh cannot be discarded to hold that the accused/appellants were present before the Sessions Court on the date of the incident. 20. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no interference is required in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 21. In the result, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.