JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants have filed these criminal appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2017 and the order of sentence dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2013 holding the appellants guilty for the offence under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for two years for the offence under section 302/34 IPC. The appellants were further sentenced for RI for three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo SI for one month for the offence under section 201/34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and period undergone in custody was ordered to be set off. 3. The prosecution was launched on the basis of written report dated 20.03.2012 of the informant Constable Muttappa Chavan (PW-1), who was posted at C.I.S.F Unit BSL, Bokaro. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.03.2012 at 13:00 hours informant along with Constable Prasanjit Sarkar (PW-2) came to their workplace at Marshalling Yard, B.S.L., Bokaro Plant. Informant further stated that during course of patrolling, at 14:15 hours, when informant along with Constable Prasanjit Sarkar, arrived near Marshalling Yard Tower, they smelt foul odour. Thereafter, they went towards the direction, from where the foul odour was coming out and on reaching there, they found four dead bodies in a drain adjacent to the north boundary wall of the plant which were concealed with bushes. The further case of the prosecution is that the maggots were present over the four dead bodies, faces of all the four bodies were distorted and all the dead bodies were in the process of decomposition. Out of the recovered four dead bodies, two dead bodies were of females wearing nighty aged about 20 years and 25 years and other two dead bodies were of male in which one body was in naked condition aged about 35 years and another was wearing black colour fullpant and coloured T-shirt aged about 25 years and one 2 and 1/2 feet rope was lying near the dead bodies. The information was given through walky-talky in the Control Room to Shift In-charge L.K. Mandal and after receiving the said information the Officers and other employees of the department reached near the dead bodies but the said bodies could not be identified. 4. On the basis of the written report, B.S.City P.S.Case No. 123/2012 dated 20.03.2012 was registered under sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C against unknown. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and Raju Sao, under sections 302/201/120B/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and cognizance of the offences were taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined altogether 14 witnesses out of whom PW-1 is Constable Muttappa Chavan, who is the informant of the case; PW-2 is Constable Prasanjit Sarkar; PW-3 is Tribhuwan Kumar Singh, who is Block Co-Operative extension Officer, Chas; PW-4 is Taskin Ahmad, who is Health Supervisor in Mineral Area Development Authority, Chas and he was deputed as Magistrate; PW-5 is Dhiraj Kumar Singh and PW-6 is Kameshwar Singh and both are son and husband of the deceased Anila Devi respectively; PW-7 is Mahabir Singh, who is Executive Magistrate, Bokaro; PW -8 is Dr. Ravi Shekhar ; PW-9 is Dr. Haridwar Singh ; PW-10 is Dr. Bikash Kumar ; PW-11 is Ramod Kumar Singh, who is the investigating officer of the case ; PW-12 is Dr. Hridyesh Kumar Sinha, who is Assistant Director at Jharkhand State Forensic Science Laboratory; PW-13 is Constable Baijnath Prajapti and PW-14 is Binay Kumar Sinha, who was then Officer-in-Charge of Marafari, police station. 6. PW-1 Constable Constable Muttappa Chavan, is the informant of the case. Informant has stated in his evidence that in the year 2012, he was posted as CISF constable in Bokaro Plant. The incident is of 20.03.2012 and on that day his duty was in 'B' shift from 01.00 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. in Marshalling Yard and the Constable Prasanjit Sarkar (PW-2) was with him. Informant further stated that while he was patrolling, he smelt foul odour near Marshalling Yard Tower and when he went near the Tower he saw one dead body. Informant further stated that while he was patrolling, he smelt foul odour near Marshalling Yard Tower and when he went near the Tower he saw one dead body. He informed head constable L.K.Mandal, shift-in-charge, on walky-talky. Thereafter, officers of his department arrived and four dead bodies were recovered out of them two were male and two were female, which were in totally decomposed condition. Informant further stated that it seems that after committing the murder, the dead bodies were thrown there. Informant identified the written application and his signature on it and the written report was marked as Ext.-1. Informant further stated that inquest report of all the four dead bodies was prepared and informant had identified his signatures on carbon copy of all the inquest reports which were marked as Exts. 2, 3, 4 and 5. 7. PW-2 Constable Prasanjit Sarkar, has stated in his evidence that occurrence is of 20.03.2012 at 2:15 P.M. and on that day he was posted in BSL, Bokaro, and his duty was in H Company Marshalling Yard from 13:00 hours to 21:00 hours. PW-2 further stated that while patrolling, when he reached towards the tower, he smelt foul odour, then he went towards the same direction and saw four dead bodies, in drain, hidden in the bushes, which were in decomposed condition and there was a rope of 2 and 1/2 feet by the side of dead bodies. Muttappa Chavan (PW-1), who was in duty with him, had filed written report on which he had signed and signature of PW-2 on the written report was marked as Ext.-1/1. PW-2 has identified his signature on the carbon copy of all the inquest report which were marked as Exts.-2/1,3/1,4/1and 5/1. 8. PW-3 Tribhuwan Kumar Singh is Block Co-Operative extension Officer at Chas. PW-3 has stated in his evidence that on 20.3.2012, he was posted as Co-operative Extension Officer at Chas Block and on direction of SDO, Chas, he along with Officer-in-Charge Ramod Kumar Singh and other armed police personnel went to the house of Jitendra Sao at Sardar Colony, Marafari and found the house locked. Then, in presence of independent witnesses, lock of the house was broken and after opening the door, one loaded country made pistol wrapped in a cloth was recovered and seized. Thereafter, they went to the house of Mouji Lal and from there one small sword was recovered and seized. Then, in presence of independent witnesses, lock of the house was broken and after opening the door, one loaded country made pistol wrapped in a cloth was recovered and seized. Thereafter, they went to the house of Mouji Lal and from there one small sword was recovered and seized. PW-3 has identified his signature on the seizure list of loaded country made pistol recovered from the house of Jitendra Sao, which was marked as Ext.-3/1. PW-3 has further identified his signature on the seizure list of the sword recovered from the house of Mouji Lal, which was marked as Ext.-3. In his cross-examination PW-3 has stated that a live cartridge was recovered. 9. PW-4 Taskin Ahmad is Health Supervisor, who was deputed as Magistrate. PW-4 has stated in his evidence that on 24.03.2012, he was posted in Mineral Area Development Authority, Chas, as Health Supervisor and on the direction of SDO, Chas, he along with police force went to Jhopri Colony, Sardar Muhalla, Marafari. The lock of the house of Kameshwar Prasad Singh was broken in presence of Special Investigation Team, who came from Ranchi. The Special Investigation Team, took the blood samples scattered in the house which was marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-12. Thereafter, Special Team collected blood stains from the wall of Bokaro Steel Plant which were marked as Ext.-13 to Ext.-15 and then pieces of hair were recovered from inside the boundary. PW-4 further stated that list of the recovered articles was prepared by the expert team and PW-4 has identified his signature on the aforesaid list and his signature was marked as Ext.-4. 10. PW-5 is Dhiraj Kumar Singh, who is the son of the deceased Anila Devi. PW-5 has stated in his evidence that a desi katta (country-made pistol) was recovered from the southern room of the tile house of Jitendra Sahu in his presence by the police on 25.03.2012 at about 4:30 p.m. Desi katta was wrapped in violet coloured cloth and empty cartridge was loaded in the katta and at that time the people of administration side were also present there. PW-5 has identified his signature on the seizure list of country made pistol and loaded cartridge, recovered from the house of Jitendra Sao and his signature was marked as Ext-3/2. PW-5 has identified his signature on the seizure list of country made pistol and loaded cartridge, recovered from the house of Jitendra Sao and his signature was marked as Ext-3/2. PW-5 further stated that one sword was seized from the house of Chhotu Choudhary and PW-5 has identified his signature on the seizure list of the sword and his signature on the said seizure list was marked as Ext.-3/3. 11. PW-6 is Kameshwar Singh, who is the husband of deceased Anila Devi. PW-6 has stated in his evidence that on 25.03.2012, the police had recovered one desi katta and one empty cartridge wrapped in a badami colour cloth from the house of accused Vijay Choudhary in his presence. PW-6 has also proved his signature on the seizure list of country made pistol and his signature on the said seizure list was marked as Ext.-3/4. PW-6 further stated that on the same day, the police had also recovered a sword of about 1 to 1.25 feet from the house Maujilal Choudhary and seizure list of it was prepared in his presence. PW-6 has identified his signature on the seizure list of the sword and his signature on this seizure list was marked as Ext.-3/5. 12. PW-8 is Dr. Ravi Shekhar. PW-8 has stated in his evidence that he was posted at Sub Divisional Hospital, Chas on 21.03.2012 as Medical Officer and on the advice of Civil Surgeon, Bokaro, a Medical Board was constituted for conducting post-mortem on four dead bodies. The Board had conducted the postmortem examination on dead body of (1) Priyanka Kumari, aged about 22 years, (2) Unknown male Dhirendra Singh, aged about 30 years, (3) Neeraj Kumar @ Munna aged about 26 years and (4) Anila Devi aged about 55 years. PW-8 further stated that he had prepared the post-mortem report of Priyanka Kumari, in his own handwriting and found the following : i. Body was highly decomposed ii. Maggots were found all over the body iii. A decomposed lacerated wound 4" x 5" present over the neck iv. Larynx and Trachea lacerated and decomposed On dissection of body it was found: i. Skull: Intact ii. Brain: Liquefied and decomposed iii. Heart: Partially decomposed and empty iv. All other viscera were decomposed. PW-8 stated that cause of death was probably due to sharp cutting wound over the neck. Larynx and Trachea lacerated and decomposed On dissection of body it was found: i. Skull: Intact ii. Brain: Liquefied and decomposed iii. Heart: Partially decomposed and empty iv. All other viscera were decomposed. PW-8 stated that cause of death was probably due to sharp cutting wound over the neck. The postmortem report of the deceased Priyanka Kumari was marked as Ext.-6. In his cross-examination PW-8 stated that time of death is before 4 to 5 days. 13. PW-10 is Dr. Bikash Kumar, who was also one of the members of the Medical Board constituted for conducting post-mortem on the four dead bodies. PW-10 has stated in his evidence that he had prepared post-mortem report of three deceased. (I). PW-10 on the autopsy of Neeraj Kumar @ Munna had found the following: General Examination: (i) Rigor Mortis absent all four limbs; (ii) Both eyes protuted; (iii) Mouth closed; (iv) Tongue inside; (v) Stinking smell present. External Injuries: i. Highly decomposed all over body and skin abraded and maggots present all over body; ii. Decomposed lacerated wound over front of the neck extending of the whole of the length and breadth of the neck; iii. Scalp hair burnt and singed. On Dissection: i. Skull intact ii. Brain liquefied iii. Hyoid bone trachea and larynx disrupted and decomposed iv. Heart empty and decomposed v. Lungs, liver, kidney, stomach, Bladder decomposed Doctor deposed that cause of death was probably due to sharp cutting injury over the neck and time since death within five to seven days. Doctor has proved the postmortem report of Neeraj Kumar @ Munna which was marked as Ext-6/6. (II). PW-10 further stated that on post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dhirendra Singh, he found the following: General Examination: (i) Rigor Mortis absent all four limbs (ii) Both eyes protuted (iii) Mouth opened (iv) Tongue outside about 1/2 cm decomposed and stinking smell present; External Injury: i. Highly decomposed all over body and skin abraded and maggots present all over body, ii. Decomposed lacerated wound size in 2 cm in diameter and whole in the skull right side of the frontal region, iii. Decomposed lacerated wound size in 2.5 cm in diameter piercing the left side on the occipital bone, iv. Decomposed lacerated wound size in 2 cm in diameter and whole in the skull right side of the frontal region, iii. Decomposed lacerated wound size in 2.5 cm in diameter piercing the left side on the occipital bone, iv. Decomposed lacerated wound over left side of mid chest size in 3 cm in diameter piercing the chest wall v. Decomposed lacerated wound over left side of the mid back region size in 2 cm in diameter. vi. Scalp hair burnt and singed. On Dissection: i. Skull: There was hole 2 cm in diameter right frontal bone and 2.5 cm in diameter hole present on left side of occipital bone, ii. Brain liquefied and decomposed, iii. Hyoid bone trachea and larynx- no obvious finding iv. Heart: both chamber empty and decomposed, v. Lung, liver, spleen, kidney- decomposed, vi. Stomach and bladder- decomposed. PW-10 opined cause of death may be due to fire arm injury and time since death about within five to seven days. He proved the post-mortem report of Dhirendra Singh, which was marked as Ext-6/7. (III). PW-10 further stated that on post-mortem examination on the dead body of Anila Devi, he found the following: General Examination: i. Rigor mortis-absent all four limbs, ii. Both eyes protuted, iii. Mouth- open, iv. Tongue- inside, v. Stinking smell present. External Injuries: i. Decomposed all over body, maggots present all over body, ii. All facial tissues highly decomposed with facial bone visible, iii. Decomposed lacerated wound mid sternum region size in 4 and 1/2 cm in diameter, iv. Decomposed lacerated wound mid-dorsal region 1 laterally to the spine size in 2 and 1/2 cm diameter. On Dissection: i. Skull: intact, ii. Brain liquefied, iii. Hyoid bone trachea and larynx-decomposed iv. Heart-both chamber empty and larynx decomposed, v. Lung, Liver, spleen, Kidney, stomach, bladder and uterus decomposed, Doctor opined that cause of death may be fire arm injury and time since death within five to seven days. Doctor has proved the post-mortem report of Anila Devi which was marked as Ext-6/8. 14. PW-11 is Ramod Kumar Singh, who is the investigating officer of the case. Investigating officer has stated in his evidence that on 20.03.2012, he was posted as officer-in-charge at BSL police station and on taking up investigation, he had reached the place of occurrence. Investigating officer further stated that Executive Magistrate Mahabir Singh, prepared the inquest report of the four dead bodies. Investigating officer has stated in his evidence that on 20.03.2012, he was posted as officer-in-charge at BSL police station and on taking up investigation, he had reached the place of occurrence. Investigating officer further stated that Executive Magistrate Mahabir Singh, prepared the inquest report of the four dead bodies. Seizure list of blood-stained soil and rope of 2 and 1/2 feet, recovered nearby from the bodies were prepared. On the next day i.e. on 21.03.2012, all the four dead bodies were sent to Sub Divisional Hospital, Chas for postmortem and in presence of deputed Magistrate Sri Mahabir Singh, postmortem of four bodies were done by the medical board. On 22.03.2012, he received information regarding missing of entire family of the house at Sardar Colony, Marafari, since last one week and acting on the said information, the investigating officer along with officer-in-charge of Marafari, police station Binay Kumar Sinha (PW-14), reached Sardar Colony and there came know that family members of Anila Devi were missing for one week and the door was locked. Investigating officer further stated that after making discussion with Binay Kumar Sinha O/C, P.S.-Marafari, he came to know that Anila Devi and her family members had instituted several cases against Chhotu Choudhary, Mithun Choudhary and their family members and Chhotu Choudhary @Vijay Choudhary had also instituted several cases against Anila Devi and her family members. Binay Kumar Sinha also said that he knew Anila Devi and her family due to institution of case and son of Anila Devi namely Shivendra Singh @ Dagra is in Remand Home, Chas, in connection with Marafari P.S. Case No.69/2011, and he can identify the dead bodies. Binay Kumar Sinha, also told that accused Vijay Choudhary @Chhotu Choudhary, is on inimical terms with Anila Devi and he had surrendered on 17.03.2012 in Marafari P.S.Case No.19/2012 and is in judicial custody. Investigating Officer further stated that on 23.03.2012 Shivendra Singh @Dagra was brought on parole, who identified the dead bodies of his mother Anila Devi, sister Priyanka Kumari, brothers Neeraj Kumar Singh @Munna and Dhirendra Singh. Thereafter, Kameshwar Singh (PW6) also reached mortuary and identified the dead bodies of his wife Anila Devi, daughter Priyanka Kumari, sons Neeraj Kumar Singh @ Munna and Dhirendra Singh, and raised suspicion on accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and other residents of colony in commission of murder. Blood-stained clothes of four bodies were seized for forensic examination. Thereafter, Kameshwar Singh (PW6) also reached mortuary and identified the dead bodies of his wife Anila Devi, daughter Priyanka Kumari, sons Neeraj Kumar Singh @ Munna and Dhirendra Singh, and raised suspicion on accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and other residents of colony in commission of murder. Blood-stained clothes of four bodies were seized for forensic examination. Investigating officer further stated that he received an order from the office of S.D.O, Chas, to search the house of Anila Devi and for this a magistrate namely Taskin Ahmad, Health Supervisor of MADA, Chas, was deputed. On 24.03.2012, he along with deputed Magistrate Taskin Ahmad and members of Special team of SFSL, Ranchi consisting of Dr. H.K. Sinha, Sri K. Shankar and Sri B. K. Thakur proceeded for Sardar Colony, Marafari and also requested Binay Kumar Sinha, officer-in-charge to arrive at the house of Anila Devi. Thereafter, the main door of the house of Anila Devi was broken in presence of deputed Magistrate and the members of Special Team, SFSL, Ranchi, entered into the room of Anila Devi and collected evidences. The exhibits collected by the Special Team, from the house of Anila Devi was handed over to him for sending it for analysis at FSL, Ranchi. Thereafter, he along with the special team and deputed magistrate went inside the B.S.L. Plant, nearby the Marshalling Yard Tower, from where the four bodies were found and the Special Team of FSL, handed him exhibits of earthed blood and other exhibits for sending it for analysis at FSL, Ranchi. On 25.03.2012 suspected Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and Mithun Choudhary, were taken on police remand for interrogation and Vijay Choudhary during course of interrogation, confessed his guilt and guilt of Jitendra Sao and Raju Sao and stated that they had committed murder with pistol and sword and he had given the said pistol, before his surrender on 17.03.2012 in the court, to Jitendra Sao and sword and bicycle belonged to Raju Sao, was kept by Raju Sao. Vijay Choudhary disclosed that Anila Devi was in habit of filing false cases against him and his family members and other residents of colony and used to send them jail. Investigating officer further stated that both the side had instituted altogether 9 cases against each other and both the sides had gone to the jail. Vijay Choudhary disclosed that Anila Devi was in habit of filing false cases against him and his family members and other residents of colony and used to send them jail. Investigating officer further stated that both the side had instituted altogether 9 cases against each other and both the sides had gone to the jail. Investigating officer further stated that to verify the disclosure statement of accused Vijay Choudhary, Tribhuvan Kumar Singh, Co-operative Extension Officer, Chas, was deputed as Magistrate and they came to Saradar Colony. Deputed Magistrate searched the house of Jitendra Sao, in presence of Kameshwar Singh and Dhiraj Kumar Singh, from where loaded country made pistol was recovered and seizure list of it was prepared by the deputed Magistrate. Thereafter, on the pointing of Vijay Choudhary, one iron sword was recovered from the house of Raju Sao by the deputed Magistrate and seizure list of it was prepared. Investigating officer further stated that he filed a written report to register the case of recovery of pistol and cartridge from the house of Jitendra Sao. On 30.04.2012, Raju Sao was arrested who accepted his guilt and also confessed about involvement of Vijay Choudhary and Jitendra Sao. Investigating officer further stated that list of bloodstained soil seized near the four dead bodies and piece of rope was prepared, which is in his own handwriting and two witnesses had also signed on it. Investigating officer had identified and proved the said seizure list which was marked as Ext.-7. Investigating officer had also proved the endorsement in the written report in his handwriting and signature, which was marked as Ext.-1/2. Investigating officer has identified his signatures on the formal F.I.R, done at two places, which were marked as Ext.-8 and Ext.-8/1. He has stated that inquest report of all the four dead bodies are carbon copies which were written on the dictation and direction of Mahabir Singh, Magistrate, which is in his handwriting and bears the signature of Magistrate. Investigating officer had proved the inquest report, which were marked as Ext.-2/3, Ext.-3/3, Ext.-4/3, and Ext.-5/3. Investigating officer has also proved the seizure list of the seized country made pistol and loaded cartridge and seizure list of iron sword, which was prepared on the direction of Tribhuwan Kumar Singh, Magistrate and which is in his handwriting and the said seizure lists were marked Ext.-3/6 and Ext.-3/7 respectively. Investigating officer has also proved the seizure list of the seized country made pistol and loaded cartridge and seizure list of iron sword, which was prepared on the direction of Tribhuwan Kumar Singh, Magistrate and which is in his handwriting and the said seizure lists were marked Ext.-3/6 and Ext.-3/7 respectively. Investigating officer had further proved the confessional statement of the accused Vijay Choudhary and accused Raju Sao which were marked as Ext.-9 and Ext.-10 respectively. 15. P.W.-12 is Dr. Hridyesh Kumar Sinha, who is Assistant Director at Jharkhand State Forensic Laboratory, Ranchi. PW-12 had stated in his evidence that by memo no.297 dated 16.05.2012 sent in B.S.City P.S.Case No.123/2012 dated 20.03.2012 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, is the biological report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jharkhand, Ranchi, which numbered as S.F.S.L No.552/12 dated 20.05.2013, which is in three pages. The aforesaid report was prepared, typed and signed by him and counter signed by the In-charge Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi, and this biological report of S.F.S.L. was marked as Ext.-11. PW-12 further stated that in this case, 24 exhibits were sent which were marked as Ext.-A/1, Ext.-A/2, Ext.-A/3, Ext.-A/4, Ext.-A/5, Ext.-A/6, Ext.-A/7, Ext.-A/8 and Ext.-B/1, Ext.-B/2, Ext.-B/3, Ext.-B/4, Ext.-B/5, Ext.-B/6, Ext.-B/7 Ext.-B/8, Ext.-B/9, Ext.-B/10, Ext.-B/11, Ext.-B/12, Ext.-B/13, Ext.-B/14, Ext.-B/15 and Ext.-B/16. PW-12 further stated that on examination of exhibits, blood was found in all the above exhibits, Ext.-B/2 and Ext.-B/15 were blood-stained human hair, without root, in pieces were found. 16. P.W.-13 is Baijnath Prajapati, who is police constable. PW-13 had produced one desi katta, one bullet and one iron Sword in the light of the order letter no.488585 of the Officer-in-Charge, B.S.City P.S., which were seized material exhibits of B.S.City P.S. Case no. 123/2012 and S.T.Case no.151/2013. PW-13 had produced iron sword wrapped in the paper and tied by a plastic thread before the Court, on which B.S.City P.S. Case no. 123/2012 was mentioned on the butt of the sword and on which date 20.03.2012, is also mentioned and on the other side of the butt, M.R.22/2012 is mentioned on a paper. P.W.-13 further produced and proved the sealed iron katta which was wrapped on a white cloth and on which Marafari Case no.22/2012 dated 25.03.2012 and sections 25(1-B) A and 26/35 Arms Act are mentioned and a cartridge inside a pocket was also kept. P.W.-13 further produced and proved the sealed iron katta which was wrapped on a white cloth and on which Marafari Case no.22/2012 dated 25.03.2012 and sections 25(1-B) A and 26/35 Arms Act are mentioned and a cartridge inside a pocket was also kept. The sword was marked as Material Ext.-1, sealed Revolver as Material Ext.-II and Blank Cartridge as Material Ext.-III. 17. PW-14 Binay Kumar Sinha, who was posted as officer-in-charge of Marafari police station in 2012. PW-14 had stated in his evidence that on 22.3.2012, the officer-in charge of B.S. City Police Station Ramod Kumar Singh (PW-11) had asked him to help in B.S. City case no 123/2012. They had gone to Sardar Colony and came to know that the family members of Anila Devi were not residing since last 5-6 days and the lock was put in her main door. PW-14 further stated that deceased Anila Devi and the family members of Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu, were in litigating terms and cases were being instituted and Anila Devi and her family members usually visited Marafari Police Station for instituting the case, so he knew the family members of Anila Devi. PW-14 further stated that daughter of Anila Devi namely Priyanka Kumari had instituted case against Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu and others for her kidnapping and injuring her for which Marafari P.S. Case No.19/2012 dated 17.03.2012 was registered. In between both the sides i.e. Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu and Anila Devi, case and counter case usually got instituted and altogether 9 cases were lodged in between them and in one of the cases Shivendra Singh @ Dagra was languishing as juvenile prisoner in Remand Home. Accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu and his one another brother had surrendered in Marafari P.S. Case No. 19/2012 and at that time they were in jail custody and hence they came to the conclusion that with a view of divert the investigation, after committing the offence, they had surrendered and had gone to judicial custody. He had taken the confessional statement of accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu on 25.03.2012. He had taken the confessional statement of accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu on 25.03.2012. PW-14 further stated that on the basis of confessional statement of accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu, one Magistrate was deputed by S.D.O., Chas and in presence of the said Magistrate one country made pistol and one cartridge wrapped in cloth was recovered from the tile house of Jitendra Sao and sword and bicycle were recovered from the house of accused Raju Sao. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 468 of 2018 18. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that first and foremost it is to be noted that there was subsisting disputes between the deceased persons and appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and his family and because of the disputes both the families had registered case and a counter case against each other and, therefore, litigation was also going on between them. On the basis of the aforesaid disputes and on such information the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary was apprehended and his confession was recorded. On the basis of confession raid was conducted on different houses and in absence of both the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and Raju Sao, a loaded country made pistol and sword was recovered and on the basis of recovery of loaded country made pistol and sword, the conviction of the appellant has been made, though it has not been established whether the loaded country made pistol and sword were used in commission of the alleged crime. There is no ballistic report regarding use of pistol or FSL report regarding use of sword to connect that pistol and sword were used in the crime. The FSL report is of the blood sample which were collected from the deceased person's house and after recovery of dead body only alleged confession was made meaning dead body was recovered before confession. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed from the deposition of PW-3 and submitted that nowhere in his deposition PW-3 had stated that this appellant was present when seizure was made. PW-5 had stated that during the search of the house of Jitendra Sao, his sister, brother-in-law(sala) and father were present and police had taken signature of these three persons on the seizure list and he had not entered onto the house of Jitendra Sao. 20. PW-5 had stated that during the search of the house of Jitendra Sao, his sister, brother-in-law(sala) and father were present and police had taken signature of these three persons on the seizure list and he had not entered onto the house of Jitendra Sao. 20. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-8 Dr. Ravi Shekhar, PW-9 Dr. Haridwar Singh and PW-10 Dr. Bikash Kumar, were members of the Board, who conducted postmortem examination and prepared the postmortem report of the dead bodies which were 5-7 days old and bodies were not in a position to be identified, but, the learned Trial Court failed to consider that all bodies were highly decomposed. PW-11 Ramod Kumar Singh, is the investigating officer of the case and investigating officer has stated that after making an entry in the station diary, without number, he had proceeded to the place of occurrence and saw all the four dead bodies which were in a totally decomposed state and bodies were not capable of being identified. Investigating officer also stated that there was no indication of the gun shot injury on the inquest report and he had without any requisition called PW-14 Binay Kumar Sinha, who had recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. Investigating officer has also stated that at the time of seizure, nobody from the public was present and he did not produce ballistic report of the pistol and empty cartridge and hence, investigation was totally defective and was not done in proper manner. In his cross-examination investigating officer has clearly stated that no blood stain was found on the recovered sword. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that on the basis of the evidence as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court had noted in paragraph no. 105 of the impugned judgment that there is no direct eye-witness to the occurrence. However, the impugned judgment records in paragraph no.120 that the confessional statement of the accused persons marked as Ext.-9 and Ext.-10 are admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of such wrong observations this appellant and Raju Sao were found guilty for the offence under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court should not have taken the confessional statement as admissible rather inadmissible and unreliable. 22. The learned Trial Court should not have taken the confessional statement as admissible rather inadmissible and unreliable. 22. The learned counsel further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses and no recovery much less recovery or any incriminating article was made either from the conscious possession or from the house of this appellant and, therefore, it creates doubt regarding commission of alleged crime by this appellant and even in the inquest report no sign of entry and exit of bullet was found by the prosecution. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that due to inimical terms between the parties, appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The case of prosecution is totally based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the occurrence and during trial, the prosecution totally failed to complete the chain of circumstances against the appellant. The learned Trial court failed to consider that whole case of the prosecution is based against the appellant merely on the confessional statement of Vijay Choudhary and confession before the police has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The learned Trial court failed to consider that PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are not trustworthy witnesses because so many contradictions are there in their evidences. PW-3 Tribhuwan Kumar Singh, stated that on 20.03.2012, from the house of Jitendar Sao, one loaded desi katta and from the house of Maujilal, one small sword was recovered, but, PW-3 further stated that seizure list was not prepared at the place of recovery rather prepared at the Police Station. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant then pointed out sections 25, 26 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and cited the judgments of Pulukuri Kottaya and others v. King Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine 47 and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1962 SC 1788 . Learned counsel then referred to page-77 of the judgment in Pulukuri Kottaya(supra) and emphasized on the word “fact discovered” and submitted that in this case it was held that:- “…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 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.” 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the chain of circumstances is not complete and in absence of being able to link with the arms which were recovered, to the commission of the crime, by any evidence and not even by support of FSL report, then the chain of circumstances would not be completed. Learned counsel submitted that chain of circumstances is not complete to convict the appellant and has referred the judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 . Learned counsel thus said that based on all these aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellant shall be acquitted. Arguments advanced by the appellant Cr. Appeal (DB) 222/2018 26. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants have been convicted for the offence under sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC on the basis of the depositions of PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6, who are not trustworthy witnesses because so many contradictions are there in their evidence. PW-3 stated that one loaded desi katta was recovered from the house of Jitendra Sao and one small sword was recovered from the house of one Moujilal on 20.03.2012, but, PW-3 has also stated that seizure list not prepared at the place of recovery rather prepared at police station. PW-3 stated that one loaded desi katta was recovered from the house of Jitendra Sao and one small sword was recovered from the house of one Moujilal on 20.03.2012, but, PW-3 has also stated that seizure list not prepared at the place of recovery rather prepared at police station. PW-5 namely Dhiraj Kumar Singh said that on 25.03.2012 at 4.30 p.m. an empty cartridge and one desi katta was recovered from the house of Jitendra Sahu, in his presence and further said that on same day one small tangi was also seized from the house of Chhotu Choudhary. PW-6 Kameshwar Singh said in his deposition that on 25.03.2012 at about 5.00 hours one desi katta and one khokha were seized from the house of Vijay Choudhary and one sword was seized from the house of Moujilal, in the room of Raju. PW-8 Dr. Ravi Shekhar had clearly said in his cross-examination that neck was highly decomposed so they assessed that there were some injuries in the neck but it cannot be said that what weapon was used in causing the injury. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-11 investigating officer had clearly stated in his cross-examination that one sword was recovered from the house of Raju Sao on which no blood stain was found. It is alleged that the appellant took the house of Moujilal on rent but, the police did not make Moujilal, an accused. The opinion of ballistic report with respect to the recovered seized pistol and cartridge was not obtained and sword alleged to be recovered from the room of this appellant was not sent to FSL for examination. Investigating officer has also stated that there is no indication of gunshot injury on the inquest report. Investigating officer, in his cross-examination, had stated that he had not taken statement of any deputed Magistrate under section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating officer has stated that on the confessional statement of Vijay Choudhary, Raju Sao was made an accused, but there is no any other evidence to implicate the appellant in this case. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State 27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the case in hand relates to heinous crime where four persons belonging to same family were murdered by the appellants. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State 27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the case in hand relates to heinous crime where four persons belonging to same family were murdered by the appellants. The appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, was on inimical terms with the deceased family and after killing them, he had surrendered in the court and had gone in judicial custody, in other case, so that suspicion could not be raised against him. PW-14 Binay Kumar Sinha was posted as officer-in-charge of the Marafari police station and he had taken the confessional statement of accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and on the basis of confessional statement of accused Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu, one Magistrate was deputed by S.D.O., Chas and in presence of the said Magistrate one country made pistol and one cartridge wrapped in cloth was recovered from the tile house of Jitendra Sao and sword was recovered from the room of the accused Raju Sao. Appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, had put his signature on his confessional statement. Regarding question raised by the appellant's counsel that weapons recovered were not sent to FSL for examination, learned counsel submitted that this was defective investigation. Lastly, learned counsel for the state submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on proper evidence and requires no interference and shall be sustained and upheld by this court. FINDING 28. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and gone into the evidence and facts and circumstance of the case. Both the appellants have been convicted under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of 4 persons of the same family of which two were males and two females. All the four dead bodies were firstly seen by the informant PW-1 Constable Muttappa Chavan and PW-2 Constable Prasanjit Sarkar, on 20.03.2012 at 14:15 hours, who were posted as CISF Constables in Bokaro Steel Plant and were on patrolling duty, which resulted in filing of written report dated 20.03.2012, by the informant PW-1 Constable Muttappa Chavan. All the four dead bodies were firstly seen by the informant PW-1 Constable Muttappa Chavan and PW-2 Constable Prasanjit Sarkar, on 20.03.2012 at 14:15 hours, who were posted as CISF Constables in Bokaro Steel Plant and were on patrolling duty, which resulted in filing of written report dated 20.03.2012, by the informant PW-1 Constable Muttappa Chavan. The four dead bodies were found in a drain adjacent to the north boundary wall of the plant, which were concealed with bushes and the bodies were in totally decomposed condition, their faces were distorted and foul odour was coming out of them. When the investigation proceeded, it came to be known that the aforesaid four dead bodies were of (i) Anila Devi, aged about 55 years (ii) Priyanka Kumari, aged about 22 years (iii) Neeraj Kumar @ Munna, aged about 26 years and (iv) Dhirendra Singh, aged about 30 years. Priyanka Kumari was the daughter and Neeraj Kumar @ Munna and Dhirendra Singh, were the sons of Anila Devi and were resident of Sardar Colony falling under Marafari Police Station, District-Bokaro. Later on, all the four dead bodies were identified by Anila’s son Shivendra Singh @ Dagra, who was in custody in Remand Home, Chas, as juvenile prisoner and PW-6 Kameshwar Singh, who is the husband of the deceased Anila Devi and he was at District-Hazaribagh, on the fateful night, when his wife, two sons and daughter were murdered. 29. The background of the case is that the deceased family and appellants were resident of aforesaid Sardar Colony and appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and Anila’s family were on inimical terms. Both the sides had instituted altogether 9 cases against each other and persons from both sides had gone to jail. 30. In the case in hand there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, specifically, the confession viz Ext.-9 of the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, leading to recovery of loaded country made pistol and iron sword, used in the commission of crime. 31. 30. In the case in hand there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, specifically, the confession viz Ext.-9 of the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, leading to recovery of loaded country made pistol and iron sword, used in the commission of crime. 31. The learned Trial Court had convicted the appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidences relying on the fact that appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, was on inimical terms with the deceased people's family; confessional statement of the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary leading to the recovery and seizure of country made pistol and iron sword used in the commission of crime, which were recovered in presence of PW-3 Tribhuvan Kumar Singh, who is Block Co-Operative extension Officer, Chas and evidence gathered by the special team of S.F.S.L. Ranchi, which in its SFL report opined all the articles contained human blood. 32. (i) In the case in hand, it has to be seen whether the recovery of weapons i.e. country made pistol and iron sword, used in commission of crime, as per confessional statement Ext.-9, of the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, was proper. PW-3 Tribhuwan Kumar Singh, is the Block Co-Operative extension Officer, Chas, and he has stated in his evidence that on direction of SDO, Chas, he along with police personnel had, on search, found one loaded country made pistol from the house of Jitendra Sao, after breaking open his locked house and one small sword was recovered from the house of Mouji Lal. PW-3 had put his signature on the seizure list of recovered country made pistol and iron sword, and his signature on it were marked as Ext.-3/1 and Ext.-3 respectively. Seizure list of country made pistol is marked as Ext.-3/6 and seizure list of iron sword is marked as Ext.-3/7. (ii) Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to sections 25 and 26 to the extent that confession of an accused can be proved by the prosecution when it distinctly relates to the discovery of facts. So, when a weapon used in commission of crime are recovered pursuant to the information disclosed by the accused, that part of confession of the accused shall be provable by the prosecution. So, when a weapon used in commission of crime are recovered pursuant to the information disclosed by the accused, that part of confession of the accused shall be provable by the prosecution. In the case in hand, pursuant to the disclosure of the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, weapons used in the commission of crime i.e. country made pistol and iron sword, were recovered and seized by PW-3 Tribhuwan Prasad Singh, Block Co-Operative extension Officer, Chas. (iii) Therefore, in our opinion, the confessional statement Ext.-9 of the appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary leading to recovery and seizure of country made pistol Ext.-3/6 and iron sword Ext.-3/7, used in the commission of crime and recovery in presence of PW-3 Tribhuvan Kumar Singh, Block Co-Operative extension Officer, Chas, is free from doubt. 33. (i) Further, the autopsy over the four dead bodies of Anila Devi, Priyanka Kumari, Neeraj Kumar @ Munna, and Dhirendra Singh, were conducted by the medical board constituting PW-8 Dr. Ravi Shekhar, PW-9 Dr. Haridwar Singh and PW-10 Dr. Bikash Kumar. PW-8 Dr. Ravi Shekhar had deposed that there was decomposed lacerated wound 4" x 5" present over the neck of Priyanka Kumari and doctor opined that death was probably due to sharp cutting wound over the neck. PW-10 Dr. Bikash Kumar had found decomposed lacerated wound over front of the neck extending the whole of the length and breadth of the neck on the person of Neeraj Kumar @ Munna and opined that his death may be due to sharp cutting injury over the neck. Further, PW-10 Dr. Bikash Kumar had found decomposed lacerated wound size in 2.5 cm in diameter piercing the left side on the occipital bone and decomposed lacerated wound over left side of mid chest size in 3 cm in diameter piercing the chest wall on the person of Dhirendra Singh and doctor opined that cause of his death may be fire arm injury. PW-10 had also found decomposed lacerated wound mid sternum region size in 4 and 1/2 cm in diameter and decomposed lacerated wound mid-dorsal region laterally to the spine size in 2 and 1/2 cm diameter on the person of Anila Devi and doctor opined that her death may be caused by fire arm injury. PW-10 had also found decomposed lacerated wound mid sternum region size in 4 and 1/2 cm in diameter and decomposed lacerated wound mid-dorsal region laterally to the spine size in 2 and 1/2 cm diameter on the person of Anila Devi and doctor opined that her death may be caused by fire arm injury. (ii) So, the medical evidence clearly reveals the use of fire arm and sharp cutting weapon in killing the four persons and the doctors had also opined that time since death within 5 to 7 days. Hence, medical evidence supports the fact that recovered country made pistol and sword were used in the commission of crime. Though there is some contradiction as to manner of assault as disclosed by the appellants and in the postmortem report of the deceased persons, particularly with regard to killing of Neeraj Kumar @ Munna and Dhirendra Singh. In their confessional statement appellants had disclosed that Neeraj Kumar @ Munna was shot dead by fire arm and neck of Dhirendra Singh was cut by sword whereas the postmortem report reveals that the neck of Neeraj Singh @ Munna was cut by sharp cutting weapon and Dhirendra Singh was shot dead by fire arm, but, this contradiction has been answered in paragraph-144(V) of the impugned judgment, wherein learned trial court had said that accused persons may commit error in naming the deceased persons. 34. The special team of FSL had collected blood samples from the house of the deceased family and blood stains from the wall of Bokaro Steel Plant, in presence of the deputed Magistrate PW-4 Taskin Ahmad. PW-12 Dr. Hridyesh Kumar Sinha, Assistant Director at Jharkhand State Forensic Laboratory, Ranchi, had stated that 24 exhibits were sent for examination and on examination of exhibits, blood were found on all the exhibits. 35. The judgments relied on learned counsel for the appellant Pulukuri Kottaya(supra) and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy(supra), are not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case as in the case in hand weapons used in the commission of crime i.e. country made pistol and iron sword were recovered on the confessional statement of appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and said country made pistol and iron sword were recovered and seized by PW-3 Tribhuvan Kumar Singh, Block Co-Operative extension Officer, Chas. 36. 36. Hence, prosecution has proved charges against both the appellants under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Priyanka Kumari, Neeraj Kumar @ Munna, Dhirendra Singh and Anila Devi, which is supported by recovery of weapons i.e. country made pistol and iron sword, on the confessional statement of appellant Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary viz seizure lists Ext.-3/6 and Ext.-3/7 respectively. The confessional statements of both the appellant finds support from the medical evidence of the medical board, who had conducted postmortem examination on the four dead bodies and had found injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon and fire arm on the persons of the deceased. 37. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2017 and the order of sentence dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in connection with Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2013, requires no interference and are hereby sustained and upheld. 38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. 39. Hence, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 468 of 2018 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 222 of 2018 are dismissed.