JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. The criminal appeal preferred by the appellant accused Rakesh @ Jaggo Vinubhai Parmar – original accused no.1 under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.338 of 2006, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional imprisonment of 3 months. He was also sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/- and default thereof, further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Trial Court acquitted remaining accused viz. Brijrajsinh Chudasma and Hasmukh Ravat. The juvenile accused Vijay was tried by the Juvenile Court. 2. We have heard Dr. Hardik Raval, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant-accused and Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP for the respondent-State. 3. The prosecution case based on purely on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the onus upon the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The Supreme Court in Sharad Bardhichand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 1984 (4) SCC 116 ) , laid down golden principle to be followed in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Para-153 of the judgment reads as under: "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 ] where the observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 4. Keeping in view the above principles, let us examine the facts and evidence of the case. The appellant Rakeshkumar Parmar and other three persons were tried for the offence of murder and robbery. According to the prosecution case, they killed the deceased Rishidepsingh @ Pinto aged about 17 years, by strangulating him with clutch-wire (generally used for two wheeler) and robbed the cash amount of Rs.4500/-, nokia mobile phone and jewelries like two golden chains, silver and gold rings, which were worn by the deceased. 5. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that; 5.1 Deceased Pintoo was resident of Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad and he was passionate to wear golden chains and rings and he was used to wear two golden chains, rings and keep with him the latest mobile phone. The father of the deceased was custom officer and mother settled at Canada. The deceased was living with his elder brother Rajdeepisingh Siddhu (PW-1). The deceased generally used to sit at the Pan Shop in the area of Meghaninagar. The father of the deceased was custom officer and mother settled at Canada. The deceased was living with his elder brother Rajdeepisingh Siddhu (PW-1). The deceased generally used to sit at the Pan Shop in the area of Meghaninagar. The appellant accused Rakesh was also belonged to same area and used to visit the pan shop, where the deceased usually come for time pass. 5.2 In the aforesaid facts, the appellant along with his three friends planned to robbed the deceased and in order to call him at the secluded place, the minor accused Vijay had called on the mobile of the deceased that, one girl Vanita wants to meet him on 05.04.2006 at about 9-00 PM and she will waiting for him near I.G. compound, Meghaninagar. The call was made from nearby STD PCO booth owned by Dilip Vachheta (PW-6). The plan was successful. The appellant accused and his companion obtained a clutch wire of two wheeler from Dipak Prajapati (PW-8), who is doing repairing work of vehicles in the name of style of “Jay Ambe Auto Service’. On the day when deceased was called, he had worn three golden chains and two golden rings and one silver ring. He had bought new Bajaj Pulsar Bike. As per the plan, the deceased went to the place of incident. The accused in connivance with each other and in order to rob the deceased, killed him by strangulation using the clutch wire and thereafter, taken away the jewelry worn by the deceased along with Nokia mobile and his vollet wherein, cash amount of Rs.4500/- was lying. The accused after the death of the deceased, took his dead body and threw it near warehouse of PWD situated in the I.G. Compound, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad. The death was caused between 9-30 to 11-00. On the day of incident, at the pan shop, the deceased had conversation with his brother PW- 1, who went to see the movie with his friends. When the brother PW-1 after 12-00 PM, came to his house, the presence of the deceased was not found and his mobile phone was switched-off. The PW-1 in the morning came to know that, the dead body of the deceased was lying in the I.G. Compound. The Meghaninagar Police was also informed and the police officials came at the spot. When the brother PW-1 after 12-00 PM, came to his house, the presence of the deceased was not found and his mobile phone was switched-off. The PW-1 in the morning came to know that, the dead body of the deceased was lying in the I.G. Compound. The Meghaninagar Police was also informed and the police officials came at the spot. The clutch wire, which was used for strangulation, was found at the neck of the deceased. The PW-1 noticed that, the jewelry and other valuable including Mobile were not found on the body of the deceased and on seeing the nature of injuries, he lodged an FIR against the unknown person for the act of robbery and murder of his brother. The office was registered at Meghaninagar Police Station. The investigation was commenced. The IO PW-15 Mr. Jadav came to know that the appellant and three persons committed murder of the deceased and on preliminary investigation, the involvement was surfaced. During the course of investigation, the appellant and three persons received injuries on their hands and it revealed that the valuables looted were concealed in the house of appellant accused Rakesh. The accused were arrested and when the appellant accused was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of gold jewelry, cash amount of Rs.4500/-, nokia mobile phone and the voucher of the goldsmith – Mahakali Dwellers. During the course of investigation, the IO recorded the statement of the garage owner who had provided old clutch wire and goldsmith - Dilip Soni (PW-10) and other witnesses. The pulsar bike was found at the instance of the appellant accused, as it was parked by him at the parking area of Trimurti Apartment, Meghaninagar. The injuries found on the body of the accused were confirmed by the Doctor Hitesh Patel (PW-5). The cause of death after the postmortum opined by Dr. Manish Galani (PW-2) that, death had occurred in between 9 to 11 prior to day one of the autopsy and cause of death is due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation. In such circumstances, after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against three accused including the appellant for the offences, as enumerated above and so far as juvenile accused Vijay is concerned, the chargesheet laid before the Juvenile Court. 6. In such circumstances, after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against three accused including the appellant for the offences, as enumerated above and so far as juvenile accused Vijay is concerned, the chargesheet laid before the Juvenile Court. 6. After due framing of charge and upon accused pleading not guilty, trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Court, Ahmedabad. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Oral evidence PW 1 – Exh. 10 Rajdipsinh Kavarpalsinh Sidhu, complainant PW 2 – Exh. 12 Dr. Manish Bachubhai Gelani, medical officer PW 3 – Exh. 14 Babubhai Girdharbhai Prajapati, panch witness PW 4 – Exh. 19 Rajeshkumar Santrambhai Kahar PW 5 – Exh. 20 Dr. Hitesh Shaileshbhai Patel, medical officer PW 6 – Exh. 28 Dilipbhai Pravinbhai Vachheta, panch witness PW 7 – Exh. 49 Dharmeshkunmar Shankarlal Raval PW 8 – Exh. 50 Dipak @ Pinto Uprajbhai Prajapati PW 9 – Exh. 53 Pannalal Shivlal Soni PW 10 – Exh. 54 Dilipbhai Ambalal Soni PW 11 – Exh. 56 Ishwarbhai Babubhai Parmar, panch witness PW 12 – Exh. 61 Prahladbhai Madhavlal Patel, panch witness PW 13 – Exh. 70 Hardik Dineshchandra Gandhi PW 14 – Exh. 71 Kanchansinh Pushpatsinh PW 15 – Exh. 76 Nageshkumar Ramkrushna Jadav, investigating officer Documentary evidence Exh. 11 Original complaint Exh. 77 Report written to officer in-charge Exh. 78 Report to FSL officer to visit crime scene Exh. 15 Inquest panchanama Exh. 57 Panchanama of crime scene Exh. 58 Panchanama of seizure of clothes from the dead body Exh. 68 Panchanama of search and seizure of the accused Exh. 29 Panchanama of seizure of articles voluntarily produced by accused Rakesh @ Jaggo Vinubhai Parmar Exh. 69 Panchanama of voluntary production of red pulsar bike by accused Rakesh @ Jaggo Vinubhai Parmar Exh. 59 Panchanama of voluntary production of clutch wire by accused no. 1 Rakeshkumar and accused no. 2 Bijrajsingh Exh. 21 Injury certificate of accused no.1 Rakesh Exh. 22 Injury certificate of accused no. 2 Bijrajsingh Exh. 23 Injury certificate of accused no. 3 Hasmukhbhai Exh. 24 Injury certificate of Vijaykumar Exh. 13 Post Mortem Note Exh. 79 FSL Forwarding note Exh. 80 Receipt of FSL muddamal Exh. 81 Cover letter of FSL and FSL opinion Exh. 82 Receipt of FSL muddamal Exh. 83 FSL opinion alongwith FSL letter Exh. 84 Serological report 7. 2 Bijrajsingh Exh. 23 Injury certificate of accused no. 3 Hasmukhbhai Exh. 24 Injury certificate of Vijaykumar Exh. 13 Post Mortem Note Exh. 79 FSL Forwarding note Exh. 80 Receipt of FSL muddamal Exh. 81 Cover letter of FSL and FSL opinion Exh. 82 Receipt of FSL muddamal Exh. 83 FSL opinion alongwith FSL letter Exh. 84 Serological report 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant and others were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to which, they stated that, they were innocent of all the charges and in connivance with the police official, they had been falsely arraigned in the case and as such, they are innocent and have not committed any offence. 8. After hearing the parties, the court below came to the conclusion that, the various circumstances as referred by the prosecution have been proved and forms a chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellant accused and convicted him for the offence of murder and robbery. So far as remaining accused are concerned, they have been extended the benefit of doubt. 9. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction, the appellant accused has come up with the present appeal. 10. Prosecution case being based on circumstantial evidence, it relied on the following circumstances to establish its case against the appellant accused : (i) The accused and the deceased Pintoo living in the area of Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad and the deceased was wearing gold jewelry in the form of chains and rings and was having a new pulsar bike. (ii) In order to rob the deceased, the appellant accused along with co-accused, on 05.04.2026, made a call from STD PCO and informed him that one girl Vanita wants to meet him at about 9-00 pm nearby I.G. compound, Hanuman Temple, Meghaningar and on that day, the deceased worn three gold chains and two gold rings and one silver ring and was having Rs.4500/- cash in his vollet and had bought one red colour Bajaj Pulsar Motorbike. (iii) Before deceased could reach at the place, the accused, as a pre-plan obtained old clutch wire from Dipak Prajapati, the garriage owner (PW-8). (iii) Before deceased could reach at the place, the accused, as a pre-plan obtained old clutch wire from Dipak Prajapati, the garriage owner (PW-8). (iv) on 05.04.2006 between 9-00 pm to 11-00 pm, the deceased Pintoo was strangulated by using clutch wire and whatever valuables he had worn, including cash amount, the accused took away and as a safer side, the appellant accused concealed it in his house and same had been discovered and recovered by the police at the instance of the appellant accused. (v) The pulsar motorbike, which was purchased by the deceased in the name of Dharmaprasad Kesurbhai and after the incident, same was taken away by the appellant accused and parked in the private apartment namely Trimurti Apartment, Meghaninagar. 11. The trial Court accepted the aforesaid circumstances as proved, and convicted the appellant accused. 12. In the aforesaid background facts assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence learned counsel Dr. Hardik Raval, appearing for the appellant contended that, none of the circumstances, relied upon by the court below have been proved beyond the reasonable doubt and all these circumstances either cumulatively or individually are insufficient to establish the guild of the accused. The Court below failed to appreciate that the evidence of discovery and recovery are not trustworthy and reliable. There are material contradictions in the testimony of the panch witnesses, who were witnessed the discovery panchnama Exh. 29 and deposition of IO. The IO as well the witnesses of Exh. 29 have not proved the contents of the panchnama. The recovery of goldsmith bill Exh. 31, is without any signature and the witness PW-10, allegedly issued the said bill, has not proved by producing cogent evidence about the sale of golden chain to the deceased. The bill Exh. 31 is got up and produced by the goldsmith at the instance of complainant. The explanation of the goldsmith about using the gold of his mother is not convincing. Therefore, in order to get conviction the IO has created false evidence. The bill Exh. 31 is got up and produced by the goldsmith at the instance of complainant. The explanation of the goldsmith about using the gold of his mother is not convincing. Therefore, in order to get conviction the IO has created false evidence. So far as recovery of valuable jewellery is concerned, it has not matched with the facts deposed by PW-1 complainant, as the item Rudraksh chain, gold pendent and two gold items (vedh) are not part of the alleged robbery and despite of this, more jewellery were being recovered and seized, which shows that the jewellery found from the house of the accused having no any relevance with the jewellery worn by the deceased. The jewellery alleged to have been worn by the deceased, are not established so far as ownership is concerned because nothing on record to prove that, the same jewellery was robbed by the accused. The recovered jewellery was not shown to the complainant PW-1 and therefore, in absence of any specific mark on the jewellery and non-identification by PW-1, the factum of recovery and discovery cannot be used to connect the accused in the crime. 13. Dr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate submitted that, there is no any investigation on the aspect of girl Vanita.There is no investigation on the aspect of call made to the deceased on his mobile phone. The owner of STD PCO Dharmesh Raval – PW-7 is got up witness. There is no evidence collected by the IO that on 05.04.2006, the juvenile accused Vijay by inserting coin of Rs.1/- made a call from the Tata instrument on the mobile No. 9898896596. The nokia mobile phone, model No. 6270 allegedly recovered at the house of present appellant accused, was not sent for forensic analysis. In such circumstances, the incriminating circumstances about the calling of STD PCO booth by the juvenile accused is not proved and established. 14. Dr. Raval, learned counsel submitted that, the prosecution has examined garage owner Dipak Prajapati (PW-8) to prove the fact that the clutch wire was obtained by the appellant and other accused. The witness was called at the police station, where police had shown the accused. The clutch wire seized by the police at the place and thereafter, how it could be possible to show the clutch wire to witness PW-8. The witness was called at the police station, where police had shown the accused. The clutch wire seized by the police at the place and thereafter, how it could be possible to show the clutch wire to witness PW-8. Thus, the evidence of Dipak Prajapati and facts about clutch wire which has no any specific mark and any one get it from the market, has no evidentiary value and cannot be conclusive proof to prove the use of clutch wire in killing the deceased. 15. Dr. Hardik Raval, learned counsel raised the contention that the ownership of bike allegedly seized from the parking place of Trimurti Apartment, is not established. The prosecution witness PW-13 Hardik Gandhi, in his testimony admitted that, the bike was purchased in the name of Dharmaprasad Kesurbhai. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was possessing the said Bajaj pulsar motorbike at the time of incident. 16. Dr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate submitted that when the evidence of discovery and recovery is not trustworthy, cogent and reliable, then, the act of robbery allegedly done by the accused cannot be believed. In the facts of the present case, in the absence of any eye witnesses motive for committing the robbery is also not established and proved because, the evidence of discovery and recovery is doubtful. 17. In the circumstances as referred above, Dr. Hardik Raval, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances i.e. recoveries of jewellery worn by the deceased, the factum of remaining present of the deceased on the basis of call phone at the place of incident and use of clutch wire for the act of strangulation and presence of the appellant accused at the scene of offence. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are against the settled principles of law and the findings of conviction are not based on evidence on record and therefore, the conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law and same may be quashed and the appellant be acquitted from all charges. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are against the settled principles of law and the findings of conviction are not based on evidence on record and therefore, the conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law and same may be quashed and the appellant be acquitted from all charges. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Jay Mehta, opposing the contentions has contended that, the prosecution in his case has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the valuables of the deceased looted by the accused as same had been recovered from the house of the appellant accused and evidence in this regard adduced by the prosecution are trustworthy, cogent and believable and therefore, the factum of recovery of jewellery along with other items like wallet, and Rs.4500/- has been proved by examining the independent witness of Exh. 29. Mr. Mehta would urge that, except denial of the prosecution evidence, the accused failed to explain the factum of discovery and other things which, further strengthen the prosecution case. Mr. Mehta, would urge that, the seller of the clutch wire and goldsmith who had issued the bill of the golden chain are independent witnesses and there is no reason for them to falsely deposed against the appellant accused. There is no evidence on record to the effect that they are got up witness and telling lie at the instance of complainant or police authority. Thus, he would urge that, the circumstances as referred above and the chain of events conclusively established the involvement of the accused in committing the crime of murder and robbery. The learned trial Court has not committed any error either on law or facts while recording the conviction. In such circumstances, learned APP Jay Mehta prays that there being no merits in the appeal and same may be dismissed. 19. Before adverting to the submissions, we deem it necessary to examine the necessary evidence adduced by the prosecution. In our opinion, PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-15- Investigating officer are the important witnesses and their evidence is relevant to refer for appreciation of the submissions. 19.1 The PM on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Manish Ghelani (PW-2) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. He noticed the following external and internal injuries on the body of the deceased: External injuries: 1. 19.1 The PM on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Manish Ghelani (PW-2) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. He noticed the following external and internal injuries on the body of the deceased: External injuries: 1. 6 x 0.4 cm transverse abrasion on anterior of neck crossing midline and Sabove sternal notch, of which 2 cm on right side and 4 cm on left side 2. 15 x 0.4 cm transverse abrasion on anterior of neck crossing midline and 1 cm above and parellel to injury no.1, of which 12 cm on right side and 3 cm on left side. 3. 26 x 0.4 to 0.5 cm transverse completely encircling neck ligature mark on neck 1 cm above injury no.2 and 1.5 cm below the junction of neck and floor of mouth, i is 0.5 cm deep grooved, abraded and hard area between injury no. 2 and 3 are intermittently and irregularly abraded on front aspect 4. contusion of both lips 5. 5 x 1 cm verical contusion on right chick 3 cm lateral to mouth angle 6. 1 x 0.5 cm abrasion on right chick 1.5 cm lateral to mouth angle 7. 4 x 4 cm area of intermittent and irregular abrasion on and around right eyebrow 8. 3 x 3 cm area of intermittent and irregular abrasion on right face 2 cm lateral to right eye 9. 2 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion below right eye 10. four abrasions 0.1x0.1,0.2x0.2,0.2x0.2,0.2x0.3 on right lower jaw at angle of mandible 11. 2 x 1 cm vertical contusion on right chick 3 cm anterior to ear lobule 12. 2 x 2 cm contusion 3 cm below left mastoid 13. 2 x 2 cm contusion on left chick anterior to ear lobule 14. multiple abrasions over lateral of right lower arm, lateral of right elbow and lateral of upper forearm 15. multiple abrasions over lateral of right lower arm, lateral of right elbow and lateral of upper forearm and dorsum of left hand Injury no. 1 to 13 are antemortem in which abrasions and contusions are reddish in colour, dried clotted blood sticks on abrasiond, injury no. 14 and 15 are postmortem Internal injuries: Brain and meninges are conjugated and odematous with petetchial haemorhic spot. 1 to 13 are antemortem in which abrasions and contusions are reddish in colour, dried clotted blood sticks on abrasiond, injury no. 14 and 15 are postmortem Internal injuries: Brain and meninges are conjugated and odematous with petetchial haemorhic spot. Sub-cutaneous soft tissue and muscles below ligature mark are contused, soft tissues and muscles of neck on front and laterially both side contused below injury no. 1, 2 and 3 and more marked on front and lateral aspect. According to opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The doctor upon seeing the clutch wire, would agree that if someone strangulated with such clutch wire, the death of the person in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause death would be possible. In the cross-examination, on technical aspect the questions were being asked, but nothing on record to substantiate that, deceased was not strangulated. 19.2 PW-1 Rajdeepsingh Sidhhu being brother of the deceased, was examined by the prosecution to prove the certain facts, which are crucial and relevant to prove the charge against the accused. The witness has stated that the deceased was student of 12 th class, studying in Rajastan High School, Ahmedabad and was living with him in the block no. 80/1898, Gujarat Housing Board, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad. The witness has further stated that the deceased had bought red colour pulsar bike No. TC-72 on 05.04.2006 and the mobile number of his brother is 9898896596 and same was inserted in the Nokia 6270 mobile. The witness has further stated that his brother was wearing three golden chains and out of three chain, one is thick and two were thin and was also wearing two golden rings and one silver ring. The deceased was used to sit at Pan Shop namely ‘Divya Pan Parlour’. The witness has further stated that on 05.04.2006, near the pan shop, he met the deceased and offered him to come with him to see the movie but he has refused to give company. The witness has further stated that at about 12- 00 night when he came back after seeing the movie, the house was locked and his brother deceased till late night was not came at home and his mobile found switched off. The witness has further stated that at about 12- 00 night when he came back after seeing the movie, the house was locked and his brother deceased till late night was not came at home and his mobile found switched off. The witness has further stated that in the morning one Rajubhai came to his house and informed him that, the dead body of deceased Pintoo lying in the warehouse of the IG compound. The witness has further stated that he went to the place where the dead body was lying. The witness has stated that on seeing the dead body, one clutch wire around the neck of the deceased was found and the valuables i.e. golden chains and rings were not found on the body of the deceased and the vollet of the deceased was also not found. The bike, which the deceased had bought, was also missing. In such circumstances, witness has stated that when police arrived, he reported the incident in the form of FIR. In the cross-examination, the witness has denied that, the friends of his brother used to wear the jwellary of the deceased and permitted them to use his mobile. So far as vehicle bike is concerned, the witness has stated that he did not ask the deceased about how he got the possession of the vehicle. The witness fairly stated that he does not know about maintaining friendship with the girl by his brother. The witness has further stated that he does not know about the official bill of nokia mobile and the bills of the jewellery worn by the deceased. 19.3 Dilip Pravinbhai Vachheta (PW-6) being a witness of discovery panchnama Exh. 29 has been examined to prove the contents of panchnama. Witness has stated that on 07.04.2006, he along with his friend Mr. Kunal had been called by Meghaninagar police and they were appraised about the arrest of the accused for the act of murder and robbery. The witness has further stated that in the police station, 4 accused were there and out of 4, they accused Rakesh @ Jaglo on his own free will and volition made a statement that, he would show the place where he had hidden the jwellary and other things. The witness has further stated that in the police station, 4 accused were there and out of 4, they accused Rakesh @ Jaglo on his own free will and volition made a statement that, he would show the place where he had hidden the jwellary and other things. The witness has further stated that, thereafter in the police vehicle, along with accused they proceeded towards the place and accordingly, the vehicle was stopped near the CID quarter, Block No. 149/3529 for which the accused Rakesh said that it is his house. While entering in the house, at the instance of Rakesh, he made discovery of the jewellery, cash amount lying in the wallet mobile phone and keys of the bike. The witness has further stated that, one bill of the Mahakali Jewellers was also there and all the items have been seized and recovered in their presence and thereafter they signed the panchnama. The seized jewellery and other items as referred above, the witness has identified in the court as the complainant through his advocate produced it for its identification. The defense has tried to show the reliability and truthfulness of the witness PW-6 and considering his education and work, some minor contradictions would bound to occur but overall, the witness stood by his version, whatever stated before the court. 19.4 PW-7 Dharmesh Raval has been examined by the prosecution to prove the ownership of STD PCO and telephone made from his STD PCO booth by the accused Vijay. The witness has stated that, he is doing his business of repairing of bicycle and side by side, he is running STD PCO booth. The witness has stated that on 05.04.2006 at about 7-30 one Vijay came to his shop and at that time, three persons have accompanied him and had called by inserting Rs.1/- to some one. The witness identified the accused and stated that they were in the company of Vijay, when call was made. In the cross-examination, he admitted the facts that he cannot named the person with whom the accused Vijay had made conversation. The witness denied that he could identify the witness due to his frequent visit in the court. The witness identified the accused and stated that they were in the company of Vijay, when call was made. In the cross-examination, he admitted the facts that he cannot named the person with whom the accused Vijay had made conversation. The witness denied that he could identify the witness due to his frequent visit in the court. 19.5 PW-8 Dipak @ Pintu Prajapati being the owner of Jay Ambe Auto service has been examined to prove that before day one or two of the incident, the accused came to him for getting the old clutch wire. The witness in his testimony has stated that on 07.04.2006 he was called by the police for interrogation. He has further stated that before 3 to 4 days, 4 persons came to his garage and asked to give them old clutch wire used in the vehicle. The witness has further stated that he had given old clutch wire to them and the persons who came to his shop, are sitting in the court today and he also identified the article clutch wire in the court. In the cross-examination, he admits that there was no any identification mark being given or found in the clutch wire allegedly given to the accused. 19.6 PW-9 Goldsmith Pannalal Soni was called upon by the investigating officer at the house of the appellant- accused and on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused, he discovered the valuables robbed on the body of the deceased and the same was kept by him in his house after the incident. The witness PW-9 in his testimony deposed that, since long, he is doing his jewellery business in the name of Alankar Jewellers in the area of Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad. He further deposed that, on 07.04.2006 at about 8:30 p.m., the Meghaninagar Police called him and taken to the place where the accused was living. He further deposed that, the police directed him to weigh the jewellery and with the help of scale, he weighed the 3 golden chains, 3 rings. He also identified in the court the ornaments which he weighed at the place. He also admitted the facts that, after weighing the ornaments, he issued a certificate of his work at Exh.30 wherein he mentioned the measurement of each of the ornament. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in his certificate, he did not mention the word “fancy chain”. He also identified in the court the ornaments which he weighed at the place. He also admitted the facts that, after weighing the ornaments, he issued a certificate of his work at Exh.30 wherein he mentioned the measurement of each of the ornament. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in his certificate, he did not mention the word “fancy chain”. He also admitted that, for identification of the jewellery, no any specific mark he found to identify the ornaments. 19.7 PW-10 Dilip Soni was examined by the prosecution to prove the purchase of one chain from him by the accused just before the few days of the incident. The witness in his testimony stated that, in the area of Meghaninagar, he has been doing his jewellery business in the name of Mahakali Jewellers and according to demand of the customers, he make ornaments. He has stated that, the mother of the deceased Hansaben was used to come to his shop, as a result of which, the deceased Pintu came to his shop nearby end of the month of March, 2006 and he introduced himself as a son of Hansaben. When the deceased came to his shop, he show an old golden chain and asked him to estimate the market price. The witness has stated that, he did not do it because he advised the deceased to get the price from where the chain was purchased. The witness has further stated that thereafter on 31.03.2006, he again came to his shop and place an order to make a golden chain admeasuring 30 gram and had paid advance Rs.15,000/- and on the next day, he paid Rs.5,000/-. The deceased came to take the chain which he had ordered on 02.04.2006 and estimated the price was assessed Rs.28,250/- and at that time, he paid remaining amount of Rs.8,250/-. The witness after receiving the amount and handing over the golden chain, issued a bill in the name of deceased. The witness has identified the golden chain and the bill which was shown to him in the court. In the cross-examination, he admits that, the bill Exh.31 bears no signature of him and he did not maintained the books of accounts including ledger to show the transactions. He denied to the suggestion that at the instance of police, he falsely created the bill so as to help the prosecution. In the cross-examination, he admits that, the bill Exh.31 bears no signature of him and he did not maintained the books of accounts including ledger to show the transactions. He denied to the suggestion that at the instance of police, he falsely created the bill so as to help the prosecution. 19.8 PW-11- Ishwarbhai Parmar was cited as a witness in 3 panchnamas i.e. Exh.57, 58 and 59. The panchnama Exh.57 wherein the police narrated the facts of the scene of incident and place where the dead body of the deceased was found. The panchnama Exh.58 being drawn by the police while accepting the clothes of the deceased and blood samples presented after postmortem. By the pointing out panchnama Exh.59, the appellant and two other accused, shown the place, stating that, how they executed the murder. The witness PW-11 has supported the case of the prosecution and as per the particulars of 3 panchnamas as referred, he has narrated the facts in concise manner. In the cross-examination, the witness has denied that, he prepared the panchnama in the police station. 19.9 PW-12- Prahlad Patel has been examined to prove the contents of panchnama Exh.68 and 69. On 07.04.2006, the Meghaninagar police arrested the appellant-accused and two others. While arresting the accused, the police drew the panchnama Exh.68 and mentioned therein the superficial injuries at the finger of each of the accused and later on, they had been taken to the Civil Hospital for medical examination. So far as red Bajaj Pulsar bike is concerned, it was found in the private parking of Trimurti Aparatment, Meghaninagar. The appellant-accused in the presence of PW-12 and one Mr. Mahendra Patel, voluntarily disclosed that, after the incident, he concealed the motorbike at Trimurti Apartment. The I.O. vide panchnama Exh.69, on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant-accused, discovered the bike and same was seized. PW-12 Prahlad Patel in his testimony supported the contents of panchnama Exh.68 and 69 and narrated the facts that, the accused were arrested and the police in his presence, noted the injury marks found on each of the accused and also seized their clothes which they had worn at the time of incident. The witness PW-12 has also supported the factum of disclosure statement made by the appellant-accused with respect to the motorbike which he had kept in the parking area of Trimurti Apartment. The witness PW-12 has also supported the factum of disclosure statement made by the appellant-accused with respect to the motorbike which he had kept in the parking area of Trimurti Apartment. The police in the presence of PW-12 and other witnesses, at the behest of appellant-accused, discovered the bike and seized the same on 07.04.2006. In the cross-examination, the witness PW-12 has denied that, he never went to the place of parking as referred in Exh.69 and no any bike was being seized in his presence. 19.10 PW-13- Hardik Gandhi has been examined to prove the transaction of purchasing the bike by the deceased. The witness in his testimony has stated that, since 2006, he has been associated with Amin Automobiles as a Sales Advisor. The witness has further stated that on 05.04.2006, three young persons came to his shop for purchasing Pulsar 150cc. The persons asked for finance assistance and after completion of the formalities, the delivery of the red coloured bike being number GJ-01-TC-72 (temporary passing number) had been given to one young boy who had worn gold chains and rings on his body and he had been called by the others as Pintu. In the cross-examination, the witness had admitted that the bike was purchased in the name of Dharmaprasad Kesurbhai and at relevant time, he also came and he had completed all formalities. 19.11 PW-15- Nageshkumar Jadav – Police Inspector, Meghaninagar who had investigated the case. The witness in his testimony stated that, on 06.04.2006, he received a message from the control room about the dead body of the deceased lying in the I.G. Compound, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad. The witness further stated that he immediately rushed to the place where the dead body was identified by his father and after preparing inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem. The I.O. in his testimony has further stated that the brother of the deceased Rajdeepsingh disclosed his FIR which he had recorded in his words and then, sent it to the Meghaninagar Police Station for registration. He further stated that, the place of incident was shown by the brother of the deceased and in the presence of independent witnesses, he drew the panchnama of place of incident at Exh.57. The I.O. Mr. He further stated that, the place of incident was shown by the brother of the deceased and in the presence of independent witnesses, he drew the panchnama of place of incident at Exh.57. The I.O. Mr. Jadav – PW-15 has further stated that, on the basis of specific input, he called the appellant-accused and three others and on preliminary investigation, it revealed that, they had committed a murder of the deceased and taken away the valuables from the body of the deceased. The I.O. on the aspect of discovery and recovery of ornaments, has stated that, while in the police custody, the appellant-accused voluntarily disclosed that, the valuables which he had taken from the body of the deceased, had been concealed in his house and in the presence of two independent witnesses, he has stated the said facts and desirous to discover it from his house. The I.O. in his testimony stated that after drawing the preliminary panchnama, he along with the two witnesses and the appellant-accused proceeded to the place where the ornaments of the deceased had been concealed. The appellant-accused shown his house and while entering in the house, he pointed out that, he had concealed the ornaments in the drum and behind the photo of the deity. The I.O. in his testimony stated that, at the instance of the accused and in the presence of two witnesses, the ornaments like 3 golden chains, 3 rings, and other things discovered and recovered and in the presence of goldsmith Pannalal Soni, the procedure of weighing was done and the certificate of weighing also being issued by the goldsmith. The I.O. in his testimony identified the recovered jewellery, mobile and other things. He also identified the purchase bill of Mahakali Jewellers Exh.31, wallet and cash amount. So far as Bajaj Pulsar bike of red colour which was purchased by the deceased on the day of the incident, was looted by the accused after killing the deceased, is concerned, the I.O. in his testimony stated that, the accused-appellant voluntarily made a statement before him that after the incident, he taken the bike and kept at the parking place of Trimurti Apartment. The I.O. in his testimony stated that he called two witnesses and in his presence, the appellant-accused disclosed about the whereabouts of the bike as referred above. The I.O. in his testimony stated that he called two witnesses and in his presence, the appellant-accused disclosed about the whereabouts of the bike as referred above. The I.O. has stated that, after drawing the preliminary panchnama, he along with the accused and two witnesses, proceeded to the place where the bike was kept and accordingly, same was discovered at the instance of the accused and same has been seized accordingly. The I.O. in his testimony stated that, he recorded the statements of material witnesses and finally at the end of investigation, filed chargesheet against the three persons including the appellant-accused and so far as juvenile accused Vijay is concerned, the chargesheet against him came to be filed before the Juvenile Court. In the cross-examination, on the aspect of place of incident, he denied that, there are two compounds namely I.G.P. and P.W.D. He also admitted in his cross that the bike was purchased in the name of Dharmaprasad Kesurbhai. He has also denied to the suggestion that the deceased was having affair with one Binal. On the aspect of proceeding of discovery panchnama, the I.O. in his cross, stated that, the mother of the accused was residing in the house where the ornaments allegedly seized. The witness had denied that no any jwellery and other things were found from the house of the accused. The witness has also admitted in his cross that he did not call the father of the deceased for identification of the ornaments . He also denied that, the bill of jewellery Exh.31 is got up. He also admitted that, the shape of the rings which were seized are not rectangle. He also admits that the father of the deceased have not produced the bills of jewellery as well as the wrist watch. The I.O has denied to the suggestion that, nothing being recovered at the instance of the accused and the proceedings of panchnama being done in the police station and under his influence, the panchas had signed the papers in the police station. It is also denied by the I.O. that, at the instance of father of the deceased, he had arrested the accused on the basis of suspicion. 20. We have carefully examined the evidence as discussed hereinabove and perused the judgment impugned. It is also denied by the I.O. that, at the instance of father of the deceased, he had arrested the accused on the basis of suspicion. 20. We have carefully examined the evidence as discussed hereinabove and perused the judgment impugned. A question that arises for our consideration is whether the various circumstances as referred in para-10 of this judgment forms chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused-appellant and the proved facts are capable of giving rise to inference of the guilt of the appellant-accused? 21. Let we examine the first contention about the discovery of jewellery. The court below heavily relied upon the piece of evidence of discovery of fact i.e. 3 golden chains, rings, mobile phone, wallet, cash amount and bill of goldsmith Exh.31 at the instance of appellant-accused, as one of the incriminating circumstances in the chain of other circumstances. In the facts of the present case, the appellant-accused while he was in police custody, on his free will and volition made a statement that he would show the place where he had concealed the jewellery and other things of the deceased. The investigating officer Mr. Jadav- PW.15 in his deposition stated the facts about the disclosure statement made by the accused in the presence of two witnesses and after drawing the preliminary panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of Evidence Act, he proceeded to the place and in the presence of two witnesses, the accused pointed out the place where the jewellery were kept. Consequently, the jewellery referred were found in the drum as well as behind the photo of deity. The witness of the discovery panchnama Exh.29, had also supported the case of prosecution. The jewellery discovered and recovered were identified by the witnesses in the court. In such circumstances, the evidence of investigating officer PW.15 and PW.6-Dilip Vacheta, the witness of discovery panchnama Exh.29, has proved the contents of discovery panchnama and we do not find any infirmity in their evidence. We may profitably refer the case of Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583 . In such circumstances, the evidence of investigating officer PW.15 and PW.6-Dilip Vacheta, the witness of discovery panchnama Exh.29, has proved the contents of discovery panchnama and we do not find any infirmity in their evidence. We may profitably refer the case of Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583 . After referring to earlier decision in Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor ( AIR 1947 PC 67 ), the Supreme Court observed that, when the accused was ready to show the place where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased, the same was clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the same related distinctly to the discovery of the clothes of the deceased from the very place. The accused herein failed to explain about the huge recovery of gold jewellery from his house when he was asked to explain the prosecution evidence under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the accused that, the jewellery belongs to his mother. The accused belongs to lower strata of the society and it could not be possible for him to purchase the said jewellery. Exh.31 – receipt of the goldsmith would further strengthen the factum of the discovery and recovery. The evidence of goldsmith PW.10 Dilip Soni is neutral and trustworthy. He has no reason to issue false bill in the name of deceased. Nothing brought on record to suggest that, he has produced the false evidence at the behest of police or complainant. The goldsmith has explained why he did not have maintained the books of accounts or ledger to show the stock. We cannot expect the accounts and maintaining of the stock from a small shop owner. The issue of identification marks on the ornaments being raised, but the fact remains that, the brother of deceased PW.1 and the goldsmith PW.10 have narrated the descriptions and moreover, during the trial proceedings, the jewellery and other things found from the residence of the accused were shown to the material witnesses and they identified it. In such circumstances, it is not mandatory on the part of the I.O. to make a panchnama of identification of the jewelry in the presence of complainant. In such circumstances, we found no merits in the submissions advanced by the accused that, the evidence on the aspect of discovery and recovery is not trustworthy, reliable and believable. In such circumstances, it is not mandatory on the part of the I.O. to make a panchnama of identification of the jewelry in the presence of complainant. In such circumstances, we found no merits in the submissions advanced by the accused that, the evidence on the aspect of discovery and recovery is not trustworthy, reliable and believable. Thus, the evidence leading to discovery of the fact about the jewellery and other things mentioned in the discovery panchnama Exh.29 is the strong circumstances suggesting the involvement of the appellant accused, more particularly, when there is no explanation whatsoever less any cogent one forthcoming from the appellant accused as to how the jewellery i.e. valuables worn by the deceased and other belongings like wallet, cash amount, bill of the goldsmith found in his house. 22. According to the prosecution case, in order to rob the deceased, he was called at the place of occurrence i.e. I.G. Compound, Meghaninagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Ahmedabad. The call was made from S.T.D. PSO Booth owned by PW:7 Dharmesh Raval. The witness in his testimony has categorically stated that one Vijay who is known to him came on his shop and talked with someone by inserting Rs.1 in the booth and the connection was of TATA company and the number is 55262811. The deceased was informed by the accused that one girl Vanita wants to meet him at the place. It is no doubt true that there is no as such existence of Vanita because under the fake name, the deceased was called. Thus, the investigation on this line, naturally, could not get any input because name was fake. So far as evidence of S.T.D. PSO Booth is concerned, it is difficulty to obtain the call details because by inserting Rs.1, the call for a duration of minute was not available from the provider. In such circumstances, when the witness PW:7 identified the appellant accused that he was present at his shop along with the accused Vijay and called to someone is seem to be genuine trustworthy and believable. Therefore, the another circumstances about calling the deceased from S.T.D. PSO Booth is proved and established. 23. It is the case of the prosecution that when the deceased came at the scene of offence, he was strangulated death by old clutch wire. The said clutch wire was found in the neck of the deceased. Therefore, the another circumstances about calling the deceased from S.T.D. PSO Booth is proved and established. 23. It is the case of the prosecution that when the deceased came at the scene of offence, he was strangulated death by old clutch wire. The said clutch wire was found in the neck of the deceased. In order to prove, the said incriminating material circumstances connecting the accused, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW:8 Deepak Prajapati, who is the owner of Jay Ambe Garage. The witness Prajapati was residing in Meghaninagar and known to everybody and he along with his brother doing repairing work of two wheeler. On this aspect, the PW:8 in his testimony stated that the accused along with others came to his shop and asking to provide old clutch wire which he had provided to them. The witness has identified the clutch wire from the muddamal and also identified the accused stating that before 05.04.2006, he had given the clutch wire to the accused. In the cross examination, technical issue of identification mark was asked. On careful evidence of PW:8, we do not find any infirmity in his evidence and so far as clutch wire is concerned, the accused smartly asked him to provide old clutch wire and it is difficult to give any identification mark to it. Thus, we have no doubt on the piece of evidence with regard to providing the accused a clutch wire by PW:8. Thus, the material incriminating circumstances about using of the clutch wire for the purpose of strangulation by the accused is proved and established. 24. According to the case of the prosecution, on the day of the incident, deceased purchased a Bajaj Pulsar bike from Amin Automobiles. PW:13 Hardik Gandhi being a sales executive working with Amin Automobiles was examined to prove the factum of purchase of the bike. The bike was purchased in the name of Dharma Prasad Keshubhai. The witness has stated the entire transaction of sale and also narrated the description of the deceased like the wearing of the jewelry and other body sign. The pulsar bike was taken away by the appellant accused after the murder of the deceased and it was parked in the Trimurti Apartment. When the appellant accused was in police custody, he voluntarily stated in the presence of independent witnesses viz. The pulsar bike was taken away by the appellant accused after the murder of the deceased and it was parked in the Trimurti Apartment. When the appellant accused was in police custody, he voluntarily stated in the presence of independent witnesses viz. Prahalad Patel (PW:12) and Mahendra Patel that he is willing to show the bike which he had parked in the apartment. On the basis of disclosure statement, the police proceeded to recover the bike. The accused in the presence of independent witnesses show the bike which he had parked in the parking area of apartment. The witness Prahalad Patel (PW:12) in his testimony narrated the facts about the discovery of bike and police by drawing the preliminary panchnama Exh.68 proceeded to recover the bike and after seizure of the bike, the facts of it mentioned in the later part of the panchnama. The I.O. PW:14 Mr. Jadav stated in his deposition the exact words of discovery of facts spoken by the accused. It is no doubt true that the bike was found in the parking area and the same is accessible to all, however, facts remain that the accused was having knowledge that the pulsar bike allegedly purchased by the accused was kept in the parking area. Thus, in our opinion, the evidence of discovery of bike is trustworthy and nothing found adverse doubting on the evidence relied by the prosecution. 25. The appellant accused when arrested i.e. on 07.04.2006, was having minor injuries on his hand for which PW.5 Hitesh Patel treated him at the government hospital. 26. So far as medical evidence is concerned, PW.2 Manish Ghelani was of the opinion that the strangulation could be possible with the clutch wire and according to him, the external injuries were sufficient to cause death in-ordinary course of nature. 27. For the reasons recorded and having regard to the facts, evidence and non-explanation of the accused about the discovery of jewelry from his house, the incriminating circumstances as referred in para-10 of this judgment stands firmly established, and chain of events conclusively as referred above, suggests the involvement of the appellant accused in the murder of the deceased Pintu and looted valuables seized by the police. We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Court below that the prosecution able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused by adducing sufficient, cogent and acceptable evidence. 28. In the result, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.