Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1815 (RAJ)

Mohit @ Monu S/o Harkesh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-11-19

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2023 whereby the learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Gangapur City in Session Case No.01/2021 (hereinafter, “trial Court”) convicted the appellants-Priyanka & Mohit @ Monu under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “ IPC ”) and sentenced them as under:- Accused Appellant Offence Sentence Sentence in Default Priyanka Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- 06 months of Simple Imprisonment Mohit @ Monu Section 449 of IPC 05 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- 03 Months of Simple Imprisonment Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- 06 Months of Simple Imprisonment 2. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal, it would be relevant to succinctly outline the pertinent facts and allegations levelled against the appellants and the appropriate evidence led by the prosecution. Factual Aspects: - 3. PW-1 Hukam Singh, lodged a written complaint, Exhibit P-1, stating that on 06.01.2019, the deceased Puranmal Bairwa slept with his wife appellant-Priyanka and their children in a room at Anjani Vihar, Gangapur City, near R.G.M. Hospital. It was stated in the FIR that someone called the deceased at night and thereafter the deceased went outside and at around 5:00 AM, appellant-Priyanka attempted to unlock the door, but the door was found to be locked from outside. The appellant-Priyanka than called her neighbor, PW-3 Bhedram, who unlocked the door and found the dead body of the deceased lying in a shed. The FIR further states that the deceased was taken to C.P. Hospital, Gangapur City, where the doctors declared him dead. The dead body of the deceased was subsequently taken to his village, Jahira, where family members of the deceased observed marks on his neck and blood oozing from his ear, raising suspicion about commission of murder, by strangulating. 4. The written complainant, Exhibit P-1, also mentions that the deceased's eight-year-old son, Nitesh, stated that someone called his father and thereafter the deceased went outside and thereafter did not return. The report bears the signatures of persons namely, Phool Chand Meena, Ramraj Meena, PW.3 Bhedram Bairwa and of complainant PW.1 Hukam Singh. 4. The written complainant, Exhibit P-1, also mentions that the deceased's eight-year-old son, Nitesh, stated that someone called his father and thereafter the deceased went outside and thereafter did not return. The report bears the signatures of persons namely, Phool Chand Meena, Ramraj Meena, PW.3 Bhedram Bairwa and of complainant PW.1 Hukam Singh. It was further stated that the appellant-Priyanka was present before P.S, Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madahopur and submitted a Samsung phone belonging to deceased Puranmal to PW-19 Kedarnath Gurjar, First Investigating Officer and the aforesaid report also bears the signature of appellant-Priyanka and PW.1 Hukam Singh. 5. The report was than forwarded to P.S. Sadar, Gangapur City and subsequently an FIR No.09/2019 came to be registered under Section 302 of the IPC . 6. Following the investigation, the police charged the appellants with the commission of offence under Sections 302 and 449, read with Section 34 of the IPC . The learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.02.2020, framed charges against the appellants under /34 and 449 of the and alternatively under Section 302 of the . 7. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses, while the appellants offered no specific defence in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., instead denied the prosecution's case in its entirety and did not examine any witness. 8. After trial, the learned Trial Court by impugned judgment dated 12.10.2023, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants- Priyanka and Mohit @ Monu as mentioned above. Allegations & Evidence relied upon by Prosecution:- 9. In summary, Appellants Priyanka and Monu are accused of murdering Puranmal, who was allegedly strangled with a rope on the night of 06.01.2011. 10. The prosecution claims that appellant-Priyanka, the wife of the deceased, was involved in a love affair with accused appellant- Mohit @ Monu. The prosecution alleges that PW.10 Nitesh, who is son of the deceased & appellant Priyanka, witnessed the entire occurrence. It is further alleged that the accused-appellants committed the murder of the deceased, and the mobile conversation that transpired between them finds corroboration from the recovery of mobile phones and SIM cards effected from appellant Priyanka and appellant Mohit @ Monu, pursuant to the information separately furnished by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as well as from their respective call detail records. The prosecution also alleges that the appellants communicated via their mobiles on several occasions on the night of death of the deceased, and the body of the deceased was found lying outside his room, the room where he slept with the appellant-Priyanka and his two minor sons. Additionally, appellant Priyanka is accused of adding sedative tablets to the food, which the deceased consumed before he was eliminated. The prosecution further rests its case on the recovery of the rope allegedly used for the deceased's strangulation, at the instance of appellant Mohit. 11. The prosecution further relies on the statements of PW 1, Hukam Singh & PW 4 Hemraj, before whom the appellant-Priyanka, made an extrajudicial confession, narrating herself & appellant- Mohit @ Monu. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants: - 12. It is vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused appellants for the alleged offence. The prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were in any love relationship and that they in connivance with each other caused the murder of the deceased- Puranmal, through strangulation with a rope. 13. It is contended that the evidence of PW.10 Nitesh, does not inspire confidence, as his statement was recorded with a delay of four days. It is doubtful that a witness who accompanied the complainant to the police station to submit an FIR would not disclose the truth. It is also argued that the deposition of PW.10 is also contradictory, as he in his disposition stated that the appellants smothered the deceased with the pillow; however, in his disposition before the Court, he said that the deceased was smothered with a quilt and the investigation agency has not recovered any pillow or quilt as alleged. 14. The counsels for the appellants jointly submit that the prosecution has also miserably failed to establish the appellant's guilt, as the statements of the star witnesses PW.1 Hukam Singh and PW.4 Hemraj, before whom the appellant-Priyanka, allegedly made the extrajudicial confession, suffer from contradictions and as a result cannot be relied upon. In their examination-in-chief, they have deposed that confession by appellant-Priyanka was made on 07.01.2011, after the completion of funeral ceremony of the deceased, however, their statements were recorded with a delay of four days i.e., on 11.01.2011, and the prosecution could not provide sufficient explanation for the delay in recording their statements. In their examination-in-chief, they have deposed that confession by appellant-Priyanka was made on 07.01.2011, after the completion of funeral ceremony of the deceased, however, their statements were recorded with a delay of four days i.e., on 11.01.2011, and the prosecution could not provide sufficient explanation for the delay in recording their statements. The appellants also questioned the trustworthiness of PW.1 Hukam Singh & PW.4 Hemraj. It is also contended by counsel for the appellant-Priyanka that PW.1 Hukam Singh in his cross-examination has stated that deceased Puranmal was his real brother and was adopted by his uncle- Gaura who was owner of five bigha of land and died without having any legal heirs. He has admitted the fact that the land was jointly owned by his father and uncle and his right also exists in the said land, therefore, to eliminate the appellant-Priyanka from the said land, alleged conspiracy was hatched by PW.1 Hukam Singh with PW.4 Hemraj. 15. It is also vehemently argued that the recovery of the mobile from instances of both the appellants has not been duly proved, as the recovery witnesses are police personnel only and no effort was made to adduce any independent witness, at the time of the alleged recovery. There is no analysis of the call details submitted before the Trial Court, in order to substantiate the fact that appellants were in a relationship. It is also argued that even the deceased's father and mother PW.5 Ramlal and PW.2 Prabhati respectively in their cross-examination, have stated that they never saw the appellant-Priyanka with appellant- Mohit. The prosecution also failed to establish that the SIM card bearing No. 9079979510 was issued in the name of the appellant- Mohit @ Monu. It is also contended that the Police did not recover the utensils in which allegedly appellant-Priyanka gave ‘rabadi’ (Food item) to the deceased by mixing the sedative tablets. It is also vehemently argued that the rope recovered at the instance of appellant- Mohit @ Monu, alleged to have been used for strangulating the deceased, has not been proved to be connected with the commission of the offence. The rope was recovered from the open place and the length of rope was 18 feet and it is highly improbable that 18 feet rope can be kept in the pocket. The rope was recovered from the open place and the length of rope was 18 feet and it is highly improbable that 18 feet rope can be kept in the pocket. It is also contended that PW.10 Nitesh in his cross-examination has stated that the length of the rope was around ‘3 hands’, however, he could not disclose the colour of the rope which thereby makes the alleged recovery highly doubtful and fails to establish the same with the alleged crime. It is also contended that deceased was murdered by some other persons as he was having an illicit relationship with some other lady and discharge of seminal fluid from deceased dead body is indicative of the fact that the deceased was involved in an illicit relationship and after knowing his relationship some unknown persons caused his murder. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants may be allowed and conviction and sentence passed against the appellants may be set aside accordingly. Submissions on behalf of Prosecution : - 16. Learned Public Prosecutor justifies the impugned judgment and reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court. 17. It is contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.10 Nitesh and in his deposition, he has stated that he saw the occurrence. At the time of commission of offence, the age of PW.10 Nitesh was only 08 years and due to constant threatening made by appellants- Priyanka and Mohit @ Monu, he could not reveal the fact before the Police on the date of incident and revealed the same after a delay of 04 days. The witness PW.10, in his deposition has duly explained the delay caused in revealing the incident. 18. It is also contended that credibility of PW.1 Hukam Singh and PW.4 Hemraj also remained unimpeached even though extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence, however, the witnesses in their deposition have categorically stated that appellant-Priyanka confessed before them. It is also contended that the anxiety of the witnesses to know about the incident was apparent as they found death of the deceased suspicious and upon asking appellant-Priyanka, she confessed before them and their testimony cannot be disbelieved only for the reasons that they are close relatives of the deceased. It is also contended that the anxiety of the witnesses to know about the incident was apparent as they found death of the deceased suspicious and upon asking appellant-Priyanka, she confessed before them and their testimony cannot be disbelieved only for the reasons that they are close relatives of the deceased. It is further contended that the fact was revealed to PW.19 Kedarnath (First Investigating Officer) by the witnesses, PW.1 Hukam Singh and PW.4 Hemraj and the same gets corroboration from Exhibit-P5 site plan in which it is specifically written that ^^ftldks e`rd dh iRuh fiz;adk o vkjksih eksuw mQZ eksfgr }kjk jlksbZ okys dejs esa ,Dl 1 LFkku ij jLlh esa xyk ?kksaVdj gR;k dj ekdZ ,Dl LFkku iVduk crkrk gSA** The aforesaid site plan Exhibit-P5 was prepared in the presence of PW.1 Hukam Singh and PW.4 Hemraj and the fact was revealed by both the witnesses to the First Investigating Officer, PW.19 Kedar Nath, therefore, delay in recording the statement of PW.1 Hukam Singh and PW.4 Hemraj cannot be attributed to them as it is a lapse made by the Investigating Agency. 19. It is further contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the defence made by the appellants that PW.1 Hukam Singh hatched a conspiracy with PW.4 Hemraj to eliminate the appellant-Priyanka from her legal rights in the property, jointly owned by the witness father and his uncle is totally misconceived as deceased two sons notably PW.10 Nitesh and Vikram are natural legal heirs and after the demise of deceased, the undivided property, jointly owned by the deceased father and uncle, would go to deceased's sons. 20. Also, the allegations that the deceased was murdered by some other person as he was having an illicit relationship with some other lady is misconceived and without any credible evidence. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to fracture of Hyoid bone and discharge of semen is natural cause. 21. It is also contended that the recoveries made at the instances of appellants also established the fact that the appellants- Priyanka and Mohit @ Monu in furtherance of common intention caused murder of the deceased. 22. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to fracture of Hyoid bone and discharge of semen is natural cause. 21. It is also contended that the recoveries made at the instances of appellants also established the fact that the appellants- Priyanka and Mohit @ Monu in furtherance of common intention caused murder of the deceased. 22. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of witnesses at length and gave cogent reasons to establish guilt and convict the appellants in the aforesaid sections and there is no reason to disturb the finding arrived at by the trial Court. Therefore, the instant appeals are devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Appreciation of Evidence:- 23. There is no doubt that the appellant-Priyanka is the wife of the deceased. On the date of incident, the deceased's body was discovered outside a room within his premises, and appellant-Priyanka was present there with her two minor sons, PW.10 Nitesh and Vikram, in an adjacent room. It is also undisputed that the room where the deceased slept with Priyanka and their two sons was locked from the outside. Upon, Priyanka's call to her neighbor, PW.3 Bhedram Bairwa, the room was opened from the outside. 24. The prosecution has conclusively proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was not natural, but was caused as a result of strangulation. The post-mortem conducted by PW.16 Dr. Anil, the Medical Jurist, in definitive terms confirms this fact. The injuries and marks found on the deceased's body unerringly suggest that the deceased's death was caused as a result of strangulation. PW.16, Dr. Anil Singhal, has deposed as follows:- 25. The arguments made by learned counsels for the appellants that the deceased went outside and indulged in a sexual activity, and somebody else caused his murder, are without any proof and based on mere conjectures. The ejaculation of seminal fluid is a natural consequence of strangulation and asphyxia caused by it. It is further to be mentioned that no specific cross-examination was made to PW.16 Dr. Anil Singhal with regard to the aforesaid specific defence. 26. The ejaculation of seminal fluid is a natural consequence of strangulation and asphyxia caused by it. It is further to be mentioned that no specific cross-examination was made to PW.16 Dr. Anil Singhal with regard to the aforesaid specific defence. 26. In Modi's authoritative textbook, ‘A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 26 th Edition at Page 517, “The core principle is that the discharge of urine, faeces, and seminal fluid is a known post-mortem finding in cases of asphyxia, including strangulation and hanging.” This is attributed to the relaxation of sphincters due to an oxygen deficiency and the intense venous congestion in the body. The jurisprudence in this context refers to the medico-legal interpretation of this physical evidence. The presence of seminal fluid is considered a general sign of asphyxial death. Therefore, the defence arguments are nothing but imaginary. 27. The counsels for the appellants have questioned the testimony of PW.10 Nitesh on three accounts, firstly, the testimony of PW.10 Nitesh suffers from tutoring. 28. Secondly, his statements directly contradict with the facts he provided in his police statement, Exhibit D-3, and his court deposition. He explicitly stated that the deceased was smothered with a quilt, yet in his police statement, he claimed that smothering was done with a pillow. 29. Thirdly, it is highly questionable that PW.10 Nitesh witnessed the occurrence on the fateful night, as this fact was only revealed on 11 January 2012, with a delay of almost four days and no reasonable explanation was furnished in this respect. This delay suggests that the witness has been intentionally tutored to falsely implicate the appellants, aiming to deprive the appellant Priyanka of the land in possession of the deceased and to support PW.1 Hukam Singh intention to seize the land. 30. Before examining the truthfulness of the witnesses, it is proper to outline the relevant law as articulated by the Honb’le Apex court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh , 2025 INSC 261 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, after referring to the precedential law on the probative value of the child witness at para 35 of the Judgment, opined that: “35. From the above exposition of law, it is clear that the evidence of a child witness for all purposes is deemed to be on the same footing as any other witness, as long as the child is found to be competent to testify. The only precaution which the court should take while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that such witness must be a reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by their falling prey to tutoring. However, this in no manner means that the evidence of a child must be rejected outrightly at the slightest of discrepancy, rather what is required is that the same is evaluated with great circumspection. While appreciating the testimony of a child witness, the courts are required to assess whether the evidence of such a witness is its voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others, and whether the testimony inspires confidence. At the same time, one must be mindful that there is no rule requiring corroboration to the testimony of a child witness before any reliance is placed on it. The insistence of corroboration is only a measure of caution and prudence that the courts may exercise if deemed necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” (Emphasis Supplied) 31. Firstly, we would endeavour to determine whether the deposition of PW.10 Nitesh suffers from tutoring and was used to deprive the appellant-Priyanka, of the deceased's property. PW.10 Nitesh is a minor boy aged around eight years and his presence in the room where he slept with the deceased and his mother, the appellant-Priyanka, is undisputed. It is also not in dispute that the deceased's body was found lying outside the room and the premises were also in the possession of the deceased & appellant-Priyanka and the same has not been disputed by the defence. 32. PW.10 Nitesh in his, examination-in-chief, has categorically deposed as under:- 33. In a specific question put by the defence, the witness has stated that:- He has further deposed that:- 34. The witness, in his examination in chief, has also explained the delay in describing the incident to the police in the following manner:- 35. The above deposition of the witness suggests that his statements are free from any tutoring, and there are no cogent reasons for this court to distrust his testimony. The witness, in his examination in chief, has also explained the delay in describing the incident to the police in the following manner:- 35. The above deposition of the witness suggests that his statements are free from any tutoring, and there are no cogent reasons for this court to distrust his testimony. The witness has already lost his father, and without any strong motive, ordinarily, a child would never depose against her mother in the alleged crime. The defence could not show a single reason that a child witness who has already lost his father would depose against the appellant, had the witness been tutored, then he would have describe the graphic details about how the appellant Priyanka administered the tablets to the deceased, in his examination-in-chief, instead of his cross-examination. Therefore, we do not find that the witness was tutored or in any manner was manoeuvred. 36. Similarly, on the point of delay in examination of the witnesses, the witness has specifically reiterated in the cross- examination that he did not narrate the incident, to his relative and police official on the next date as he was under fear. He has categorically stated that he narrated the entire story after three days, thus, the witness has explained the reason of delay as he was under fear and threat from the appellants. 37. PW-10 Nitesh has further denied that someone called his father on the fateful night. The witness has also described the rope by which his father was strangulated to death and categorically stated that the length of the rope was equal to three hands, which corroborates the recovery effected from the instance of appellant Mohit @ Monu. Furthermore, the witness's replies to the cross-ex- amination are very natural and precise, detailing the incident. The age of the witness at the time of commission of the offence was only eight years & the court deposition took place after a gap of three years. Despite that, the witness replied to the questions put forth diligently & nowhere does it reflect that the witness has been manoeuvred, manipulated, or tutored. The counsels for the appellants have drawn the court's attention to the contradictions regarding Exhibit D-3, the police statements of the witness; how- ever, we find that the contradictions are not material and do not impeach the witness's credibility. The counsels for the appellants have drawn the court's attention to the contradictions regarding Exhibit D-3, the police statements of the witness; how- ever, we find that the contradictions are not material and do not impeach the witness's credibility. A witness to a crime can't illustrate the incident with precision, and contradictions are bound to occur. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to dismissing a wit- ness's testimony. The evaluation depends on multiple factors, including the witness's understanding, ability to observe and re- member, whether the contradiction is material, and if it under- mines the overall case of the prosecution. Other considerations include the specific facts of the case, surrounding evidence, and the time elapsed between the crime and the deposition. It is highly unlikely that a witness would testify flawlessly, like in a film. Based on a detailed cross-examination conducted with PW 10, Nitesh, we find that he stood unwaivered, absolutely ruling out any foul play or falsely implicating the appellants. The witness version that the appellant Priyanka was in proximity to the appellant Monu is also not controverted or shaken. It's a settled law that the testimony of the sole witness can be relied upon & corroboration is only a rule of prudence, not a legal requirement. A. The Recovery of Mobile and SIM Cards- 38. PW-21 Kanhaiya Lal (Investigating Officer) arrested the appellant Priyanka vide Exhibit P-18 on 11.01.2019, and on her in- formation furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, at Exhibit P-33, recovered a Micromax mobile phone containing two SIMs bearing numbers 8875533878 and 9783166705 in the presence of PW-8 Navdeep Singh and PW-15 Anita. The recovery of the mobile and other articles has been questioned because no in- dependent witnesses were present during the recoveries, and PW- 8, Navdeep Singh, and PW-15, Anita, are police officials; there- fore, the recovery of the mobile and other articles remains doubtful. It is a settled law that police officials are competent witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that no independent witnesses were present. However, accompanying the independent witnesses during recovery is only a rule of prudence, not a rule of law. The cross-examination of both the recovery witnesses and the Investigating Officer, PW-21 Kanhaiya Lal, remained unconfronted about any enmity with the appellant Priyanka; therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. However, accompanying the independent witnesses during recovery is only a rule of prudence, not a rule of law. The cross-examination of both the recovery witnesses and the Investigating Officer, PW-21 Kanhaiya Lal, remained unconfronted about any enmity with the appellant Priyanka; therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The appellant has not taken any specific defence in her statement rendered under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with respect to the police officials before whom the recovery was made. There is no enmity between police officials and either of the appellants; there- fore, there is no strong reason for the Court to disbelieve their testimony. Hence, as far as the recovery at the instance of appellant Priyanka, which involved two SIMs in a Micromax mobile, was proved. 39. Similarly, at the instance of the appellant, Mohit @ Monu, the recovery of a mobile bearing SIM No. 9079979510, as per Exhibit P-10, recovery memo, was effected before the police official, PW-8 Navdeep, by the Investigating Officer, PW-21 Kanhaiya Lal. This recovery was also proved, as there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the two witnesses above. 40. In the mobile device recovered from the appellant, Priyanka, two additional Vodafone company cards were found bearing the following numbers: 8875533878 and 9783166705. It is also apparent from the perusal of Exhibit P-29, customer application form, that SIM no.8875533878 was allotted to appellant Mohit @ Monu and SIM No.9783166705 was allotted to appellant Priyanka on her application form, Exhibit P-28. The prosecution has Examined PW-18, Rajesh Tripathi, and PW-22, Sachin Rathi, to establish the identity of the SIM numbers recovered from the appellant, Priyanka, and Mohit. PW-18, Rajesh Tripathi, in his deposition as the nodal officer of the Vodafone company, has categorically stated that the SIM numbers 9783166705 and 8875533838 were respectively allotted in the names of the appellant, Mohit @ Monu and Priyanka. The recovery of Mohit @ Monu's SIM card from Appellant Priyanka's Mobile itself shows that Priyanka was in proximity with the appellant, Mohit @ Monu, and the appellant, Priyanka, could not explain the evidence as to how the SIM number allotted to the appellant, Mohit @ Monu, was found on her mobile. 41. The recovery of Mohit @ Monu's SIM card from Appellant Priyanka's Mobile itself shows that Priyanka was in proximity with the appellant, Mohit @ Monu, and the appellant, Priyanka, could not explain the evidence as to how the SIM number allotted to the appellant, Mohit @ Monu, was found on her mobile. 41. PW-22 Sachin Rathi, in his deposition before the Trial Court, has stated that in the letter written to S.P., Sawai Madhopur, the details of mobile no.9079979510 were sent to the police and the mobile no.9079979510 was allotted to appellant Mohit on applying through Exhibit P-36, which bears his signature. Thus, the prosecution has established that the mobile phone, which was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant, Mohit, had a SIM card with the number 9079979510. The connectivity of the appellants through their mobile phones is also sufficiently established, as Priyanka was using her mobile with SIM no. 8875533878, calling the appellant Mohit @ Monu on his mobile number— 9079479510 on the fateful night between 03:06 AM and 4:46:03 AM for 13 times. The evidence on record includes the call details of mobile numbers 8875533878 and 9079979510, Exhibits P-26 and P-37, respectively, further strengthened the prosecution’s case, showing that the appellants were in continuous contact through their mobile phones and made repeated calls between 3:06 AM and 4:46:03 AM. The call details of SIM Nos. 9079979510 and 8875533878, Exhibit P-24, further show that be- fore the incident, both the appellants were in regular contact. It is also pertinent to note that, before the incident, i.e., a day before, the appellants were in contact from 13:37:55 to 23:12:18, during which they made five calls to each other. The call details Exhibit P- 24 also demonstrate that both the appellants were in regular connectivity through their mobiles. The call details pertains to three months prior to the date of incident. The learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the electronic evidence collected by the police during the investigation and proved by the prosecution through PW-18 Rajesh Tripati and PW-22 Sachin Rathi, who have submitted their certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act regarding furnishing the aforesaid information on the instance of the police, SP, Sawai Madhopur. The learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the electronic evidence collected by the police during the investigation and proved by the prosecution through PW-18 Rajesh Tripati and PW-22 Sachin Rathi, who have submitted their certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act regarding furnishing the aforesaid information on the instance of the police, SP, Sawai Madhopur. Thus, from the above evidence, the statement of PW-10, Nitesh Kumar, receives corroboration, and the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were in a relationship and maintained continuous contact before the commission of the offence & during the fateful night. B. The recovery of ‘alprazolam’ tablets with their burn wrappers and tablet powder- 42. It is alleged against the appellant Priyanka that before the incident, she mixed the tablets in the rabadi given to the de- ceased. We have already concluded that PW-10, Nitesh, saw the appellant, Priyanka, mixing the tablets in the food given to the deceased. This fact is further corroborated by the recovery effected from the appellant, Priyanka, at her instance by PW-21, Kanhaiya Lal, in the presence of the recovery witnesses, PW-8, Navdeep, and PW-15, Anita. The prosecution is also able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the recovery of four tablets, tablet powder, contained benzodiazepine, the content of alprazolam. Similarly, the viscera of the deceased were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after their due deposition in the Malkhana. In the FSL report, as Exhibit P-21, the presence of benzodiazepine was confirmed. It is also relevant to mention that the appellant, Priyanka, was arrested on January 11, 2019, at 2:45 PM. Autopsy of the deceased Exhibit P-20 was conducted on 07.01.2019, and viscera containing pieces of liver, spleen and kidney were also collected and properly sealed on 07.01.2022. The recovery of alprazolam tablets and their wrappers, along with the tablet powder, occurs after the viscera have been collected. The FSL report came into existence through Exhibit P-21 on 14.06.2019, i.e., after the viscera and medicines, etc., were taken and recovered, respectively. 43. Therefore, no doubt exists as to the fact that appellant Priyanka mixed the sedative medicine alprazolam in the food given to her husband, deceased Puranmal Raigar, to commit the offence. The FSL report came into existence through Exhibit P-21 on 14.06.2019, i.e., after the viscera and medicines, etc., were taken and recovered, respectively. 43. Therefore, no doubt exists as to the fact that appellant Priyanka mixed the sedative medicine alprazolam in the food given to her husband, deceased Puranmal Raigar, to commit the offence. It is also pertinent to mention that the statement of PW- 10, Nitesh, the child witness, as Exhibit D-3, was recorded on January 10, 2019, i.e., before the arrest of the appellant, Priyanka, and the recovery of medicines from her instance. PW-10 Nitesh Kumar, in his statement, Exhibits D-3, recorded by PW-21 Kanhaiya Lal, has also revealed the fact that her mother, appellant Priyanka, mixed some medicines in the food (rabadi) given to the deceased. The statement of Nitesh Kumar before the Court as PW-10 confirms the prosecution's story and also affirms that before the recovery of sedative tablets and their wrappers, the witness had given his statement before the police officials about the mixing of tablets in the deceased's food by appellant Priyanka. Thus, the above facts unerringly prove that it was appellant Priyanka who mixed the tranquillising medicines in the food of the deceased, which is enough to draw her culpability in the offence. C. The recovery of Rope- 44. Prosecution alleges that after the arrest of appellant Mohit @ Monu through Exhibit P-14, a rope used for the commission of the crime, Article 4 was recovered at the instance of appellant Monu near RGM Hospital. This fact is corroborated by the recovery of the rope in the presence of PW-8 Navdeep Singh and PW-14 Rajmal, and their statements, recorded on oath, cannot be disbelieved in the absence of any specific defence. PW-10 Nitesh, in his Court statement, has stated explicitly that appellant Mohit @ Monu entered with appellant Priyanka, where the deceased was sleeping, and thereafter, the appellant Mohit @ Monu took out a rope from his pocket. Both the appellants strangled the deceased. It is also apparent that the fact above also came during the investigation in the statement of PW-10 Nitesh rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and appellant Mohit @ Monu was arrested after the said fact was revealed by the witness before the police. The recovery of the rope at the instance of appellant Mohit @ Monu, thus, confirms the version of PW-10 Nitesh. The recovery of the rope at the instance of appellant Mohit @ Monu, thus, confirms the version of PW-10 Nitesh. The prosecution has also been able to prove that on the fateful night, appellant Mohit @ Monu, was seen by PW-6 Ramjan at the RGM Hospital at around 3:45 AM. He has stated explicitly that he was on night duty at 07.01.2019. His duty was from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM, and at about 03:45 AM, appellant Mohit entered the hospital. Although the witness has been declared hostile, however, during his cross-examination, he admitted to stating that Exhibit P-8 contained the fact that he saw the appellant- Mohit. During his cross-examination, nothing substantive has emerged that could render the statement of PW-6 disbelievable. This fact also strengthened the recovery of the rope, as Article 4, as the said rope was recovered from the ground opposite to RGM Hospital. The appellant could not controvert the fact that he did not enter the hospital at night, around 3:45 AM. Thus, this fact also corroborated the story of prosecution and is sufficient enough to draw the inference that appellant Mohit, in association with appellant Priyanka, strangled the deceased with the rope. The defence has also questioned the recovery of the rope because it was not sent for examination, from the FSL. In our view, the non-examination of the rope through FSL has no bearing upon the present fact, as the testimony of PW-10 Nitesh remained unshattered. The subsequent recovery of the rope is merely connecting evidence. Once the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants through ocular evidence, the subsequent recovery of the rope remains only a corroborative piece of evidence. 45. As far as the recovery of utensils in which appellant Priyanka mixed the tranquilizing tablets in the rabadi, concerned, it is enough to state that, the fact of deceased death by strangulation first came into existence on 08.01.2024 and there was enough time for the appellant Priyanka to wipe of the evidence further- more, the recovery of utensils is not the substantive piece of evidence, in view of the existing ocular evidence. 46. 46. Therefore, based on recovery of mobile containing SIM’s, the electronic evidence produced by the prosecution confirming the fact that the appellants were in continuous contact through their mobile on the fateful night coupled with the fact that the same tranquilizing benzodiazepine content was found in the viscera of the deceased and medicines recovered from the appellant Priyanka instance. Thus, the prosecution has able to established the guilt of the appellants without an iota of doubt. D. Extra Judicial Confession- 47. The prosecution further relies upon the extrajudicial confession made before the PW-1 Hukum Singh (complainant) and PW-4 Hemraj by the appellant Priyanka. The prosecution has come up with a categorical story that the appellant Priyanka confessed be- fore the witnesses that she, along with the appellant Mohit @ Monu, strangled the deceased with the rope after she gave tranquilizing medicines in the food (rabadi) of the deceased. The Court is well aware of the law regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions as evidence, and it is always unsafe to rely upon such evidence if it appears to be tainted or a confession uttered under threat, fear, or coercion. It is also relevant to state that under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the confession made by the co-accused, if they are tried jointly for the same offence, can be used against the other co-accused if the facts are verified by other corroborative evidence. 48. In the present case, PW-1 Hukum Singh and PW-4 Hemraj testimonies have been questioned on the basis that their statements Exhibit D-1 dated 10.01.2019 and Exhibit D-1 dated 10.01.2019, respectively were recorded with a delay of three days & there is no justification or explanation for such a delay on the part of the prosecution. It is also argued that their testimony is not reliable, as both witnesses are close relatives of deceased. (The police statement of both the witnesses Hemraj and Hukum, were marked as Exhibit D-1 by the trial Court.). 49. Furthermore, in the appellants contentions, it has come to light that PW-1 Hemraj is the real brother of the deceased, Puranmal, and has allegedly falsely implicated the appellant, Priyanka, to acquire Puranmal's property. (The police statement of both the witnesses Hemraj and Hukum, were marked as Exhibit D-1 by the trial Court.). 49. Furthermore, in the appellants contentions, it has come to light that PW-1 Hemraj is the real brother of the deceased, Puranmal, and has allegedly falsely implicated the appellant, Priyanka, to acquire Puranmal's property. The aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the appellants have no bearing on the facts of the present case, and the defence suggested has also been categorically denied; therefore, just because the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, their statement cannot be disbelieved. Both the witnesses in their statement have categorically stated that they came to know about the strangulation of the deceased on 08.01.2019, when Priyanka confessed before them. PW-1 and PW-4, in their cross-examination, evidently stated that they disclosed the fact to the police official on 08.01.2019 and denied that the fact was not disclosed until 10.01.2019. The delay in recording the statements of witnesses cannot be attributed to the witnesses, as it is the Investigating Officer's responsibility to record these statements promptly. In the present case, Exhibit P-5 which is a site plan prepared by PW-19 Kedarnath confirms the deposition of PW-1 Hukum and PW-4 Hemraj, as Exhibit- P.5 contains the following description:- The Exhibit P-5 bears signatures of PW-1 Hukum as well as PW-4 Hemraj; thus, it is apparent that the fact was revealed to the first Investigating Officer PW-19 Kedarnath on 08.01.2019, after Priyanka confessed the fact of strangulating the deceased along with the appellant Mohit, therefore, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be disbelieved only on the ground of delay in recording their statement. Further, we have disbelieved the defence put forth by the appellant Priyanka, as she, along with her minor sons, is a natural legal heir of the deceased property portion, if it is jointly owned by the deceased father and uncle and by no stretch of imagination, the share belonging to the legal heirs of the deceased would part in favour of the PW-1 Hemraj. 50. Therefore, the plea taken by the defence is without any basis and is only an imaginary argument made to question the otherwise truthful statement made by the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has thoroughly examined all the evidence presented by the prosecution and carefully considered it. 51. 50. Therefore, the plea taken by the defence is without any basis and is only an imaginary argument made to question the otherwise truthful statement made by the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has thoroughly examined all the evidence presented by the prosecution and carefully considered it. 51. Accordingly, we do not find any perversity or illegality in arriving at the conclusion holding the appellants guilty of the crime above. 52. Hence, these criminal appeals are hereby dismissed.