1

2024:CGHC:31362-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 191 of 2023

Dilip Sariwan S/o Ashok Sariwan Aged 30 Years R/o. Pateratola, P.S.

Gaurela, District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (Chhattisgarh)

---- Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Gaurela, District

Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondent

CRA No. 64 of 2023

Mahendra @ Girdhari Panika S/o Puran Panika Aged About 20 Years

R/o Korja, Police Station Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi,

Chhattisgarh

----Appellant

Versus

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police

Station Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

CRA No. 262 of 2023

Jai Prakash Yadav S/o Amrit Lal Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o

Sinchai Colony Gaurela, Police Station - Gaurela, District : Gaurela-

Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

----Appellant

Versus

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police

Station Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

2

CRA No. 304 of 2023

Tirath Lal Kashipuri S/o Late Chhedi Lal Kashipuri, Aged About 31

Years R/o Amadih Dongarapara, P.S. Pendra, District-Gourela Pendra

Marwahi Chhattisgarh

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gourela, District Gourela

Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

CRA No. 596 of 2023

1. Pawan Singh Marco S/o Baijnath Marco, Aged About 29 Years R/o

Pateratola, P.S.- Gaurela, District-Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi, (C.G.)

2. Smt. Kamta Panika W/o Durgesh Panika Aged About 23 Years R/o

Kadamsara, Police Chowki - Venkatnagar, P.S. - Jaithari, District -

Anuppur (M.P.)

----Appellants

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Gaurela, District Gaurela - Pendra

Marwahi (C.G.)

---- Respondent

And

CRA No. 753 of 2023

Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji S/o Mahesh Verma, Aged About 27 Years R/o

Lingiyadih, Near Kali Mandir PS Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gourela District Gourela -

Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

3

For Appellant: Mr.Ajay Ayachi, Advocate in CRA No.191/2023

For Appellant: Mr.Aman Tamrakar, Advocate in CRA No.64/2023

For Appellant: Mr.Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate in CRA

No.262/2023

For Appellant: Mr.Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate in CRA

No.304/2023

For Appellants: Mr.Prahalad Panda, Advocate in CRA No.596/2023

For Appellant:Mr.Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate in CRA No.53/2023

For Respondent/State:

Mr.R.S.Marhas, Additional Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

20/08/2024

1.Since the aforesaid six criminal appeals have been filed against

the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Sessions Trial

No.10/2020, they were clubbed & heard together and being

disposed of by this common judgment.

2.Appellants-Dilip Sariwan (A1), Mahendra @ Girdhari Panika (A2),

Jai Prakash Yadav (A3), Tirath Lal Kashipuri (A4), Pawan Singh

Marco (A5), Smt.Kamta Panika (A6) and Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji

(A7) have preferred these six criminal appeals under Section

374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated

14.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra

Road in Sessions Trial No.10/2020, by which the learned trial

Court has convicted appellants-Tirath Lal, Dilip Sariwan @

Sunny, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav @ Monu and Ritesh

4

Verma @ Kaleji for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of

the IPC and sentenced to undergo undergo imprisonment for life

and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further

undergo RI for six months and RI for five years and fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for

three months. The trial Court has also convicted appellants Tirath

Lal, Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav @

Monu, Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji, Mahendra @ Girdhari and Kamta

Panika for offence under Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced

to undergo RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of

payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.

3.Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that complainant Supet

(PW-1) lodged merg intimation at Gaurela Police Station at 7.40

A.M. on 16.08.2020 to the effect that yesterday at 17.00 P.M. on

15.08.2020 his nephew deceased Durgesh Panika, resident of

Kadamsara, Chhirhatola, Police Station Jaithari, village Medhuka

came to his house and said that uncle give your motorcycle, his

motorcycle is consuming too much oil, I will go to my in-laws

village Korja, Jhagrakhand. Saying this, his nephew Durgesh took

his motorcycle and left his motorcycle to his house. He does not

know whether his nephew went to his in-laws village or not. On

16.08.2020 at about 7 A.M., his nephew Ajesh Kumar informed

over the phone that his motorcycle bearing number was lying in

the main road near Gulab Raj’s motor pump near Harratola and

dead body was also lying there. When he went there, he saw that

it was his motorcycle and the dead body lying was that of his

5

nephew Durgesh Panika, on which deep wound mark was visible

on the back of his head. It appeared to be a case of murder by an

unknown person using a deadly weapon. Based on this

information, Marg Intimation (Ex.P-1) was registered, followed by

a First Information Report (Ex.P-2). The investigating officer went

to the scene, conducted an inspection and prepared a spot map

(Ex.P-4) and a panchnama (Ex.P-3). The body of the deceased

Durgesh Panika was sent to M.C.H. Sanatorium Hospital,

Gourala for postmortem, where Dr.B.S.Paikra (PW-9) conducted

postmortem vide Ex.P-5) and found following injuries:-

i. Incised wound. Brain material proted out with fracture

occipital bone.

ii. Incised wound vertex 5x1cm depth fracture vertex

bone.

iii. Incised wound 3x 5cm with fracture frontal bone with

bleeding.

iv. Abrasion over left shoulder 3x2 cm. caused by hard

and rough object.

The doctor has opined that cause of death was due to head injury

and the death was homicidal.

4.A spot map of the incident site, Harra Tola, was prepared by the

investigating officer vide Ex.P-6. Suspicion arose due to strained

relationship between the deceased and his wife, Kamata Panika,

and her affair with a person named Tirath. Kamata Panika, her

brother Mahendra @ Giridhari Panika, and other accused were

taken into custody and questioned. The accused Tirathlal, Dilip

Sariwan, Pawan Singh, Jaiprakash, and Kamata Panika stated in

6

their memorandum that Kamata and Tirath had a love affair and

they had physical relationship several times, even after Kamata's

marriage. When Durgesh found out, he started beating Kamata,

so she told Tirath to get rid of Durgesh if he wanted to be with her.

Then Tirath conspired with his associate, Sunny alias Dilip

Sariwan to kill Durgesh in an accident and offered him one lakh

rupees to do so. Sunny, in turn, involved his associates Pawan

Singh Marco, Monu @ Jaiprakash and Ritesh @ Kaleji to kill

Durgesh.

5.On August 15, 2020 at about 6 P.M., Tirath called Durgesh to

Gourala on the pretext of consuming alcohol and informed the

others involved. They took Durgesh to Anjani Bagaranda Plot,

made him drink alcohol, and then Ritesh and Pawan killed him

using a jack rod, then they loaded the body in Swaraz Mazda

vehicle and threw it in Harratola Main Road, then Tirath @ Sunny

gave Rs.20,000/- to Dilip and told him to pay the remaining

money later and came home. One black colour motorcycle

bearing registration No.CG 10-AX-4299 registered in the name of

Supet Lal, one pair shoe and one goggle have been seized from

the spot vide Ex.P-8. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were

recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-9. Spot panchnama was

prepared vide Ex.P-10. Memorandum statement of appellant-

Tirath Lal Kashipuri was recorded vide Ex.P-11 and on the basis

of his memorandum statement, one Maruti Suzuki Eeco car, black

colour jeans and blue shirt stains with blood and one mobile were

seized vide Ex.P-20. Memorandum statement of appellant Dilip

7

Sariwan was recorded vide Ex.P-12 and on the basis of his

memorandum statement, one Itel mobile, while black colour half

pant stains with blood, black vest stains with blood and one

mobile of Samsung company were seized from him vide Exs.P-16

and P-22. Memorandum statement of appellant Pawan Singh

Marco was recorded vide Ex.P-13 and on the basis of his

memorandum statement, Swaraj Mazda and jack rod stains with

blood, one t-shirt stains with blood and Vivo company mobile

were seized vide Exs.P-19 and P-21. Memorandum statement of

appellant Jaiprakash Yadav @ Monu was recorded vide Ex.P-14

and on the basis of his memorandum statement, one blue colour

t-shirt and one mobile were seized from him vide Ex.P-18.

Memorandum statement of appellant Smt.Kamta Panika was

recorded vide Ex.P-15. One mobile was seized from appellant

Mahendra Kumar @ Girdhari Panika vide Ex.P-17. Full shirt of

the deceased was seized vide Ex.P.23. Bloodstained and plain

soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-24. Appellants were

arrested on 19.8.2020 vide arrest memos Exs.P-25 to Ex.P-30.

Seized articles were sent to FSL for examination vide Ex.P-54

and as per FSL report (Ex.P-55), blood was found on jack rod

(Article C) and t-shirt (Article D) seized from appellant Pawan

Singh Marco, t-shirt (Article E) seized from appellant Jaiprakash

@ Sonu, jeans (Article F1) and shirt (Article F2) seized from

appellant Tirath Lal Kashipuri and half pant (Article G1) and vest

(Article G2) seized from appellant Dilip Sariwan and shirt (Article

H) of deceased Durgesh Panika. Call Detail Records (CDRs) and

8

tower location reports of the mobile numbers used by the

deceased Durgesh (7049761371, 7694004492), accused Tirath

Kashipuri (8224838100), accused Jaiprakash @ Monu

(8839121680), accused Giridhari @ Mahendra (6265463826),

accused Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny (9165141337) and accused

Pawan Marco (8770798733) for the period from 01.08.2020 to

20.08.2020 were obtained.

6.After due investigation, all the appellants were charge-sheeted for

the aforesaid offences in which they abjured their guilt and

entered into defence stating inter-alia that they have not

committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in

crime in question.

7.In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as

many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 55 documents Exs.P-1 to P-

55. None was examined on behalf of the defence, however,

documents (Exs.D-1 and D-2 i.e. statements of Mahesh Kumar

Panika and Umesh @ Motu Padwar) were brought on record.

8.The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.12.2022,

proceeded to convict the aforesaid accused persons for the

aforesaid offences and sentenced them as aforementioned,

against which, these criminal appeals have been preferred.

9.Mr.Ajay Ayachi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in

CRA No.191/2023 would submit that the impugned judgment of

the trial Court is illegal and contrary to law applicable to the facts

9

and circumstances of the case. There is not a single cogent

reliable witness who can independently described incident. He

would further that the trial Court has failed to see that there are

ingredient in the prosecution story to show that false story has

been concocted against the appellant with an ulterior motive.

According to the prosecution, the place of incident is a public

place where so many people are working around it. He would

also submit that nobody has taken the name of the present

appellant during Court statements and he has been convicted

only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In the present case,

memorandum and seizure witnesses were turned hostile and

they have not supported the case of the prosecution and the

present appellant has been made an accused only on the basis

of CDR and there is no evidence on record that the present

appellant was in contact with someone. There was no motive in

the present case and the appellant was not seen with other co-

accused. Blood was found on half pant (Article G1) and vest

(Article G2) seized from appellant Dilip Sariwan, but it was not

ascertained whether it was human blood. As such, appeal

deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to

be set aside.

10.Mr.Avinash Chand Sahu and Rahul Tamrakar, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants in CRA Nos.64/2023 and 262/2023

would submit that there is no any direct or indirect evidence

against the present appellants and there is no any circumstantial

evidence against the present appellants to prove that they were

10

members of criminal conspiracy. The prosecution has not proved

that upon phone call of the present appellants the deceased

came at the place of incident. They would further submit that all

the material witnesses have turned hostile and there is no

evidence that the present appellants have called the deceased.

There is no evidence to prove that the deceased was killed by the

present appellants except memorandum and all the witnesses of

memorandum were turned hostile. The trial Court has failed to

appreciate that the prosecution has not established intention and

the role of the present appellants to commit murder of the

deceased. They would also submit that the case of the

prosecution is fully based upon the circumstantial evidence,

whereas chain of events are missing and are incomplete to prove

the offence against the present appellants. There are material

contradictions and omissions in the statements/deposition of the

prosecution witnesses, which has been overlooked by the trial

Court. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed and the

impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

11.Mr.Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant in CRA No.304 of 2023 would submit that the trial Court

has erred in convicting the appellant holding him guilty for alleged

offences whereas the prosecution has completely failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that

entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial

evidence as there is no eye witnesses in the present case and

further the prosecution is completely failed to prove the guilt of

11

the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled

that in the case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances

from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the

first instance by fully established, and all the facts so established

should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused. He also also submit that there are material

contradictions, exaggerations and omissions in the statements of

the witnesses and therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in

holding the appellant guilty on the basis of statements of the

witnesses who are not worthy to be believed. As per FSL report,

blood was found on clothes recovered from appellant Tirath Lal,

but it was not proved whether it was human blood. So far as the

motive is concerned, it could not be proved and only on the basis

CDR, the present appellant has been convicted. As such, the

appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment

deserves to be set aside. He relies upon the judgment passed by

this Court in Lavkush Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal

Appeal No.1153 of 2022) on 28.02.2024.

12.Mr.Prahalad Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

in CRA No.596/2023 would submit that the impugned judgment is

perverse on the ground that the same is outcome of the incorrect

interpretation of the circumstantial evidence. There is no eye

witness in the present case and whole case is based on

circumstantial evidence and there is no material on record to

connect the present appellants in crime in question. The

relationship of appellant Kamta with her husband Durgesh was

12

cordial and there is no any dispute between them. He would also

submit that blood was found on jack rod (Article C) and t-shirt

(Article D) seized from appellant Pawan Singh Marco, but it was

ascertained whether the said blood is human blood. As such, the

appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment

deserves to be set aside.

13.Mr.Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant in CRA No.753/2023 would submit that the finding of

the trial Court is not based on material available on record and

the same is on the basis of conjecture and surmises. He would

further submit that the trial Court ought to have seen that the

prosecution has examined various witnesses but not a single

witness has given statement against the present appellant. He

would also submit that the finding of the learned trial Court is

against the rule of prudence and without establishing the offence

against the particular accused person, conviction of the present

appellant cannot be sustained. As such, the appeal deserves to

be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

14.On the other hand, Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the respondent/State would support the

impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has proved

its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after

considering all incriminating materials and circumstances

available against the accused persons rightly convicted them for

the aforesaid offences. Hence, the instant criminal appeals being

13

bereft of merits are liable to be dismissed looking to the

commission of offence done by the accused persons.

15.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also

went through the records with utmost circumspection.

16.The first question for consideration would be, whether death of

deceased Durgesh Panika was homicidal in nature ?

17.On behalf of the prosecution, Dr.B.S.Paikra who conducted

postmortem on the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-5 has been

examined as PW-9 and opined that cause of death was due to

head injury and death was homicidal in nature. After hearing

learned counsel for the parties and after considering the

submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding

recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Durgesh

Paikra was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on

evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to

record. We hereby affirm that finding.

18.It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on

circumstantial evidence. Five golden principles which constitute

Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence

have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4

SCC 116, which state as under :-

“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion

of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

14

The circumstances concerned “must” or “should”

and not “may be” established;

(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.”

19.The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State

of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of

circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make

inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the

accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus :

“41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as

Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer

to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is

that the prosecution case should reflect careful

portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences

thereof and their compatibility with a singular

hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the

case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

15

42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which

the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast

between direct evidence and circumstantial

evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the

courts are called upon to make inferences from the

available evidence, which may lead to the accused's

guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is

usually drawn by establishing the case from its

initiation to the point of commission wherein each

factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact

or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have

to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the

case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and

then see whether the case is made out beyond

reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time

followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant

case, which of course needs to be followed herein

also.”

20.The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary

evidence available on record has convicted appellants Tirath Lal,

Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav @

Monu and Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji for offence under Sections

302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and appellants Tirath Lal, Dilip

Sariwan @ Sunny, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav @ Monu,

Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji, Mahendra @ Girdhari and Kamta Panika

for offence under Section 120B of the IPC. It is the case of the

prosecution that all the appellants conspired together, formed a

common intention to kill Durgesh Panika and killed him by hitting

him on the head with a jack rod and after committing murder, they

16

loaded the body in Mazda vehicle and threw it in Harratola Main

Road.

21.In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following

circumstantial evidence against the appellants:-

(i) Death of deceased Durgesh Panika was

“homicidal” in nature.

(ii) Accused Kamta Panika (wife of deceased

Durgesh Panika) was having love affair with accused

Tirath before marriage.

(iii) The relationship between deceased Durgesh

Panika and his wife accused Kamta Panika were not

cordial and there was dispute between them.

(iv) Accused Mahendra @ Girdhari (brother-in-law of

deceased Durgesh) called the deceased on the date

of incident on the pretext of giving money.

(v) Accused Tirath called deceased Durgesh Panika

at Gaurela to consume liquor.

(vi) Accused Kamta Panika was having “motive” to

commit murder of Durgesh Panika.

(vii) Call details, tower location of the accused and

the deceased.

(viii) On the basis of the memorandum statement of

the accused, seizure of jack rod used in the crime

and the clothes worn at the time of the incident.

17

(ix) As per FSL report, human blood was found in

jack rod used in the incident and t-shirt of accused

Pawan.

(x) Blood found in the soil near the spot and in t-shirt

of accused Jaiprakash @ Monu, shirt of Tirathlal and

half pant and vest of accused Dilip Sariwan @

Sunny.

(xi) Accused Ritesh @ Kaleji absconded after the

incident.

22.The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial

Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime by

relying upon the following circumstances:-

(i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per

postmortem report (Ex.P-5) of Dr.B.S.Paikra (PW-9) who

conducted autopsy.

(ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of

deceased Durgesh Panika was within the knowledge of

the appellants, however, there was no any explanation

given by the appellants in their statements under Section

313 of the CrPC. Thus, burden of proof was on the

appellants to explain such circumstance, which they failed

to explain.

23.It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution

that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to

be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a

18

primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’

proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been

held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction

between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has

been held that the facts so established should be consistent only

with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be

explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is

guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be

such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to

be proved. It has been held that 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 probabilities the act must have been done by

the accused.

24.It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot

take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused

cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how

strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

25.In the light of these guiding principles, we will have to examine the

present case.

26.On a perusal of the judgment of the Trial Judge, it would reveal

that the main circumstance on which the Trial Judge found the

appellants guilty of the crime is the recovery of various articles at

their instances. The Trial Judge has further found that on the

basis of memorandum statement of accused-Tirath Lal, one

19

Maruti Suzuki Eeco car, black colour jeans and blue shirt stains

with blood and one mobile were seized vide Ex.P-20, on the

basis of memorandum statement of appellant Dilip Sariwan, one

Itel mobile, while black colour half pant stains with blood, black

vest stains with blood and one mobile of Samsung company were

seized from him vide Exs.P-16 and P-22, on the basis of

memorandum statement appellant Pawan Singh Marco, Swaraj

Mazda and jack rod stains with blood, one t-shirt stains with blood

and Vivo company mobile were seized from him vide Exs.P-19

and P-21, on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant

Jaiprakash Yadav, one blue colour t-shirt and one mobile were

seized from him vide Ex.P-18 and one mobile was seized from

appellant Mahendra Kumar @ Girdhari Panika vide Ex.P-17 and

as per FSL report (Ex.P-55), blood was found on jack rod (Article

C) and t-shirt (Article D) seized from appellant Pawan Singh

Marco, t-shirt (Article E) seized from appellant Jaiprakash @

Sonu, jeans (Article F1) and shirt (Article F2) seized from

appellant Tirath Lal Kashipuri and half pant (Article G1) and vest

(Article G2) seized from appellant Dilip Sariwan and shirt (Article

H) of deceased Durgesh Panika. Call Detail Records (CDRs) and

tower location reports of the mobile numbers used by the

deceased Durgesh (7049761371, 7694004492), accused Tirath

Kashipuri (8224838100), accused Jaiprakash @ Monu

(8839121680), accused Giridhari @ Mahendra (6265463826),

accused Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny (9165141337) and accused

20

Pawan Marco (8770798733) for the period from 01.08.2020 to

20.08.2020 were also obtained.

27.Investigating Officer Raghunandan Prasad Sharma (PW-14) has

stated in his Court statement that at the instance of accused Dilip

@ Sunny Sariwan, key-paid mobile of Itel company was seized

without any seam as per seizure Ex.P-16 from Barganda Plot of

village Anjani. A Redmi company mobile phone with Jio company

SIM 6265463826 was seized from accused Mahendra @ Girdhari

as per seizure Ex.P-17. A blue coloured t-shirt from accused

Jaiprakash @ Monu in which blood stains were found and a

Redmi company mobile with Airtel SIM No.9179207554 and Jio

SIM No.8839121680 were seized vide Ex.P-18. Swaraj Mazda

vehicle bearing No.CG-10/R-0622 and iron jack rod used in the

crime in which blood stains were found were seized from accused

Pawan Singh Marco vide Ex.P-19. A Maruti Suziki Eeco vehicle

bearing No.CG 10/AD-2999, black colour jeans and blue shirt

worn at the time of the incident stains with blood, Redmi

company’s mobile with Jio and idea company’s SIM 8224838100

was seized from accused Tirath Kashipuri vide Ex.P-20. A white

blue t-shirt worn by accused Pawan Marco at the time of incident

on which blood stains were found on the front and a Vivo

company mobile which had Jio company’s SIM were seized vide

Ex.P-21 and black colour half pant and black vest worn by

accused Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny at the time of the incident in

which blood stains were found and Samsung mobile in which the

21

SIM number of idea is 9165141337 were seized as per seizure

memo Ex.P-22.

28.So far as authenticity of the call detail reports and issuance of

certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is concerned,

Prabhakar Tiwari (PW-13) has stated in his court statement that

he works as the in-charge of the Cyber Cell. In connection with

Crime No. 143/2020 under Section 302 of the IPC at Gourela

Police Station, an application was submitted to his office to

provide the CDR and call detail records of mobile numbers

8224838100, 8839121680, 6265463826, 9165141337,

8770798733, 7694004492, and 7049761371 for the period from

01/08/20 to 20/08/20, as well as to obtain a certificate under

Section 65-B of the Evidence Act from the nodal officer. He then

emailed the nodal officers of the respective companies (Jio, Idea,

and Airtel) through the authorized email ID of the Cyber Cell to

obtain the CDR/call details. The hard copy of the printout was

then made available to Gourela Police Station. Mobile

No.6265463826 Mahendra @ Girdhari S/o Puranlal, Village

Korja, Mobile No.8839121680 accused Jaiprakash S/o Amritlal

Village Sarbahra, Mobile No.8770798733 Sunil Thakur S/o

Vishprasad Thakur Bhopal, Mobile No.9165141337 Dilip Sariwan

S/o Ashok Sariwan Patertola Pendra Road, Mobile

No.7694004492 Chhabilal Panika S/o Daduram Panika

Kadamsara Venketnagar Jaithari, Mobile No-Manoj Panika S/o

Santram Aamadand Pendra Road, Mobile No.8224838100

Tirathlal Kashipuri S/o Chhedilal Aamanand were registered. The

22

CDR/Call Detail Records of these numbers are contained in 62

pages. A certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has

been provided in this regard, which is Exhibit P-43.

29.The CDR and call detail records presented in the case have been

examined. On examining the call detail reports, it is revealed that

on the day of the incident i.e., 15/08/2020, there were

conversations between the mobile number 7694004492 used by

deceased Durgesh and the mobile number 6265463826 of

accused Mahendra @ Girdhari at 12:39 P.M., 12:47 P.M., 17:10

P.M., 17:11 P.M., 17:28 P.M., 17:45 P.M. and 18:25 P.M. Similarly,

on the same day i.e. 15/08/2020, there were conversations

between the mobile number 7049761371 of deceased Durgesh

Panika and the mobile number 9340946963 of accused Tirathlal

at 17:14 P.M. 18:34 P.M. and 18:51 P.M. Furthermore, there was

contact between the mobile number 7694004492 of deceased

Durgesh and the mobile number 9340946963 of accused Tirathlal

on the day of the incident i.e. 15/08/2020 at 12:12 P.M.

30.It is noteworthy that in the mobile Redmi Note-8 seized from the

possession of accused Tirathlal, Jio company’s SIM number

9340946963 and Idea company’s SIM number 8224838100 were

being used. Thus, on the date of incident, it is established that

accused Tirathlal Kashipuri and accused Mahendra @ Girdhari

had several contracts with deceased Durgesh Panika due to

which this statement of prosecution witnesses Supet Panika,

Rajkumari, Daduram and Mahesh Kumar Panika gets strength

23

that accused Mahendra @ Girdhari had called the deceased on

the pretext of giving money and in conspiracy, Tirathlal had called

the deceased on the pretext of liquor.

31.On examining the call details of accused Mahendra @ Girdhari

presented by the prosecution, it is also revealed that on the day

of the incident, i.e. 15/08/2020, there were conversations

between Mahendra @ Girdhari's mobile number 6265463826 and

accused Tirathlal's mobile number 9340946963 at 12:08 P.M.,

12:43 P.M., 12:50 P.M., 16:58 P.M., 17:13 P.M., 18:01 P.M., 18:38

P.M., 18:51 P.M., 18:58 P.M., and 21:49 P.M. Additionally, there

were approximately 07 SMS exchanges between the two mobile

numbers between 18:51 P.M. and 18:58 P.M.. The call details

also reveal that accused Mahendra @ Girdhari was in constant

contact with deceased Durgesh and also with accused Tirathlal.

The call details further reveal that accused Mahendra @ Girdhari

would first talk to the deceased, then to accused Tirathlal,

followed by another conversation with the deceased, and then

again with accused Tirathlal. This sequence continued from

around 12:00 noon to night on the day of the incident, supporting

the prosecution's claim that accused Girdhari @ Mahendra and

Tirathlal hatched a conspiracy to kill deceased Durgesh and to

carry out the said murder, on the date of murder of deceased

Durgesh, they called him repeatedly on the phone in order to

carry out their conspiracy and committed his murder.

24

32.Similarly, upon examining the above call details, it is also

revealed that accused Jaiprakash @ Monu was in constant

contact with accused Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny's mobile number

9165141337 through his mobile number 8839121680 on the day

of the incident. Similarly, accused Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny was in

constant contact with accused Tirathlal's mobile number

9340946963 and accused Jaiprakash @ Monu's mobile number

8839121680 through his mobile number 9165141337, and had

continuous conversations. Thus, the call details also reveal that

the accused persons committed the crime.

33.Thus, from the above analysis of evidence, the fact is established

beyond doubt that deceased Durgesh was aware about illicit

relationship between accused Kamta and accused Tirath, and

due to Kamta secretly talking to Tirath on mobile phone, there

was a dispute between them, and their relationship was not good.

As a result, at the behest of accused Kamta, accused Tirath

hatched a criminal conspiracy with co-accused to kill Durgesh

and make it look like an accident, and formed a common intention

to commit the crime. In pursuance of this intention, the accused

persons, including Tirath, Dilip @ Sunny, Pawan, Jaiprakash @

Motu, and Ritesh @ Kaleji called Durgesh to Gourela on the

pretext of consuming liquor and killed him and then thrown his

body on Harratola road to make it look like an accident. The

evidence presented by the prosecution also proves the motive for

murder and the fact that accused Ritesh @ Kaleji absconded

after the incident creates a presumption against him.

25

34.The documentary evidence of an electronic record under the

Evidence Act, in view of Section 65-A can be proved only in

accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B. An electronic

record shall not be admitted in evidence unless requirement

under Section 65-B is satisfied as discussed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash

Kushanrao Gorantrayal & Ors, (2020) 7 SCC 1.

35.The Supreme Court in the matter of Kiriti Pal v. State of West

Bengal, (2015) 11 SCC 178 while considering with the issue of

admissibility and relevancy of telephonic conversation made

between the persons, as evidence, in paragraph 30 to 33 has

observed as under:

“30. Apart from telephonic conversation, no other

evidence was adduced by the prosecution to bring

home that first accused hatched a conspiracy. There

is no evidence to prove as to how the appellants 2

and 3 ( Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) had gone to

the place of occurrence and what was their

subsequent conduct. Their presence near the scene

of occurrence could have been established by the

prosecution either by examining some witnesses near

and around the place of occurrence or by proving the

location of the calls so as to establish the proximity of

the accused with the scene of occurrence. Apart from

the extract of the call records, no other evidence was

adduced by the prosecution to establish the

conspiracy.

31. Apart from telephonic conversation, prosecution

also relied upon recoveries made pursuant to the

26

confessional statement of the appellants 2 and 3

(Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia). Pursuant to the

statement of Siddique Mia one TVS Fiero red colour

motor cycle bearing No. WB-54B/8245 with its key

and nokia mobile handset (phone No.9932345230)

were seized under Ext.17/3. Pursuant to the

statement of Mustaque Mia nokia mobile handset

having connection No. 9932705533, one gold finger

ring in the shape of a flower with inscription of letter

‘Anjali’, and silver made chain with one Amethist and

red coral fitted with it were seized under Ext. 18/3.

Recoveries made and seizure list were sought to be

proved by examination of PW17-Uttam Mondal.

PW17 had deposed that he knew deceased Anjali.

PW17 was then employed in the hotel run by

Bhagyadhar Dhibar which was owned by Anjali. In his

evidence PW17 stated that in January 2009, two or

three gentlemen came to his hotel and took his

signature and that he did not know why his signatures

were being taken. Though PW17 identified his

signatures in the seizure list, evidence of PW17 no

way establishes recoveries being made at the

instance of the accused 2 and 3. Evidence of PW17

is far from convincing and is not of much assistance

to the prosecution as he has not clearly spoken about

the recoveries and the seizure list. The gold ring and

silver made chain recovered were also not shown to

the other witnesses for being identified as that of

Anjali. No other evidence was adduced by the

prosecution to substantiate the recovery of objects

and the seizure list.

32. So far as the complicity of fourth accused-Durga

Sutradhar, the prosecution mainly relied upon the call

27

record and judicial confession of Durga recorded by

Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum

(Ext.26). Prosecution relied upon the recovery a

notebook seized from the possession of appellant

Durga Sutradhar where she has written Kiriti’s phone

number clandestinely coded as ‘Dadu’. Ext. 30 call

records of Kiriti Pal phone also revealed that there

were number of calls from Kiriti Pal to fourth

appellant. Like in the case of appellants No. 2 and 3

(Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) apart from

telephone calls, no other evidence was adduced by

the prosecution to bring home the guilt of fourth

accused-Durga Sutradhar. Insofar as the judicial

confessional statement recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C., it is not an inculpatory statement; but it is only

to the effect of showing the subsequent conduct of A-

1 Kiriti Pal in threatening Durga Sutradhar–fourth

appellant not to disclose anything to the police. In our

view, neither the telephone calls between the first

appellant-Kiriti Pal and Durga Sutradhar-fourth

appellant nor her confessional statement by

themselves would be sufficient to establish the guilt of

fourth appellant.

33. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the

court must adopt a very conscious approach and

should record conviction only if all the links in the

chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the

accused. All the links forming complete chain must be

firmly established by the prosecution. Each link taken

separately may just suggest suspicion but such

suspicion itself may not take the place of proof and

not sufficient to convict the accused. All the

circumstances must be firmly established and must

28

be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt. But

that is not to say that the prosecution must meet each

and every hypothesis put forward by the accused

however farfetched it may be. As discussed earlier,

the telephonic calls and the recovery may raise

suspicion against the accused but mere suspicion

itself cannot take the place of proof. In our view,

evidence adduced by the prosecution against

appellants 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia)

do not form a complete chain connecting the accused

with the crime and the conviction of the appellants

under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC

cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

Likewise, conviction of fourth appellant-Durga

Sutradhar under Section 120B cannot be sustained

and is liable to be set aside.”

36.The prosecution is required to prove each and every

circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to complete the chain of

circumstance to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. In a

case of circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to

establish that all the links in the chain of circumstances are

complete leading inescapably to the only hypothesis of the guilt of

the accused leaving out any possibility of innocence, which the

prosecution has proved in the present case.

37.In the present case, memorandum statement of appellant-Tirath

Lal was recorded vide Ex.P-11 and on the basis of memorandum

statement, one Maruti Suzuki Eeco car, black colour jeans and

blue shirt stains with blood and one mobile were seized vide

Ex.P-20. Memorandum statement of appellant Dilip Sariwan was

29

recorded vide Ex.P-12 and on the basis of his memorandum

statement, one mobile was seized from him vide Ex.P-16.

Memorandum statement of appellant Pawan Singh Mamro was

recorded vide Ex.P-13 and on the basis of memorandum

statement, Swaraj Mazda and jack rod stains with blood were

seized vide Ex.P-19. Memorandum statement of appellant

Jaiprakash Yadav @ Monu was recorded vide Ex.P-14 and on

the basis of his memorandum statement, one blue colour T-shirt

and one mobile were seized from him vide Ex.P-18.

Memorandum statement of appellant Smt.Kamta Panika was

recorded vide Ex.P-15. One mobile was seized from appellant

Mahendra Kumar @ Girdhari Panika vide Ex.P-17. One T-shirt

stains with blood and one VIVO company mobile were seized

from appellant Pawan Singh Marco vide Ex.P-21. Half pant stains

with blood, one black colour baniyan stains with blood and one

Samsung mobile were recovered from appellant Dilip Sariwan.

Full shirt of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P.23. Bloodstained

and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-24.

Appellants were arrested on 19.8.2020 vide arrest memos Exs.P-

25 to Ex.P-30. Seized articles were sent to FSL for examination

and as per FSL report (Ex.P-55), blood was found on jackrod

(Article C) and T-shirt (Article D) seized from appellant Pawan

Singh Marco, T-shirt (Article E) seized from appellant Jaiprakash

@ Sonu, jeans (Article F1) and shirt (Article F2) seized from

appellant Tirath Lal Kashipuri and half pant (Article G1) and vest

(Article G2) seized from appellant Dilip Sariwan.

30

38.The Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 107 had occasion to deal with such

nature of evidence wherein it held that it is quite common that

based on admissible portion of the statement of the accused

whenever and wherever recoveries are made, the same are

admissible in evidence and it is for the accused in those

situations to explain to the satisfaction of the court as to the

nature of recoveries and as to how they came into possession or

for planting the same at the places from where they were

recovered. That part of the statement which does not in any way

implicate the accused but is mere statement of facts would only

amount to mere admissions which can be relied upon for

ascertaining the other facts which are intrinsically connected with

the occurrence, while at the same time, the same would not in

any way result in implicating the accused in the offence directly.

39.The Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali & Anr. v. State

of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640 has observed that the

discovery of facts under Section 27 information regarding other

accused persons, to establish charge of conspiracy, in

furtherance of common intention would be admissible. The

Supreme Court in such case at para 16, 17 & 18 has held as

under:-

“16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu

(2005) 11 SCC 600 has considered the question of

discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court

has considered plethora of decisions and explained the

31

decision in Pulukuri Kottayha v. King Emperor AIR 1947

PC 67 and held thus : (Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC

600, SCC p. 704, paras 125-27)

“125. We are of the view that Kottaya case [AIR 1947

PC 67] is an authority for the proposition that

“discovery of fact” cannot be equated to the object

produced or found. It is more than that. The

discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the

information given by the accused exhibited the

knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant

as to its existence at a particular place.

126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of

this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case.

The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in

the underlined passage extracted supra was

highlighted in several decisions of this Court.

127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was

explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v.

Damu (2000) 6 SCC 269. Thomas J. observed that:

(SCC p. 283, para 35)

'35 ...The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri

Kottaya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most

quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that

the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section

embraces the place from which the object was

produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but

the information given must relate distinctly to that

effect.'

In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1

SCC 828, Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression

“fact discovered” in Section 27 is not restricted to a

32

physical or material fact which can be perceived by the

senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained

the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in

Pulukuri Kottaya case, AIR 1947 PC 67. The learned

Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p.

832, para 13)

'13...Now it is fairly settled that the expression ‘fact

discovered’ includes not only the physical object

produced, but also the place from which it is

produced and the knowledge of the accused as to

this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor AIR

1947 PC 67; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [1962

Supp (2) SCR 830]).”

17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu AIR 2000 SC 1691

the statement made by the accused that the dead body

of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a

broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to

be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused

alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement

leading to the discovery of a fact that accused had

carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the

said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court

has laid down thus : (SCC pp. 282-83, paras 35-38)

“35. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the

Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by

subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the

principle that if any fact is discovered in a search

made on the strength of any information obtained

from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee

that the information supplied by the prisoner is

true. The information might be confessional or non-

inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of

a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the

33

legislature permitted such information to be used

as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to

the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of

an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in

the section. The decision of the Privy Council in

Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the

most quoted authority for supporting the

interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged

in the section embraces the place from which the

object was produced, the knowledge of the

accused as to it, but the information given must

relate distinctly to that effect.

36. No doubt, the information permitted to be

admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of

the information which “distinctly relates to the fact

thereby discovered”. But the information to get

admissibility need not be so truncated as to make

it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of

information admitted should be consistent with

understandability. In this case, the fact discovered

by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried

the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the

motorcycle.

37. How did the particular information led to the

discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead

body of Dipak from the same canal was

antecedent to the information which PW 44

obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant

to and subsequent to obtaining the information

from the accused, there would not have been any

discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken

glass piece was recovered from that spot and that

piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the

34

motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that

the Investigating Officer discovered the fact that A-

2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that

particular motorcycle up to the spot.

38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are

inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-

2 Guruji Section 27 that the dead body of Dipak

was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular

spot is admissible in evidence. That information,

therefore, proves the prosecution case to the

abovementioned extent.”

18. In Ismail v. Emperor AIR 1946 Sind 43 it was held

that where as a result of information given by the

accused another co-accused was found by the police the

statement by the accused made to the Police as to the

whereabouts of the co-accused was held to be

admissible under section 27 as evidence against the

accused.”

40.The Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias Perumal

v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12

has defined the ‘custody’. It held that the expression “custody”

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal

custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even

surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally

arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be

deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police.

41. The Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in

Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by

35

subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that

if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any

information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a

guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true.

The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in

nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable

information. Section 27 puts a bar to use the confessional

statement, but the fact that discovery and information which

proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence.

42.From the evidence available in the case, it is also established that

accused Mahendra @ Girdhari was not present at the time of the

murder. The only evidence against him is that he facilitated

conversations between his sister accused Kamta and accused

Tirath through mobile phone, and after the incident, Tirath

informed Kamta through Girdhari that the work was done. Thus,

the offence of accused Mahendra @ Girdhari being involved in

the criminal conspiracy of murder is proved. Similarly, accused

Kamta was also not present at the time of murder, but she had

asked Tirath to remove deceased Durgesh from her path and a

conspiracy was hatched to kill Durgesh, and the offence was

committed. Thus, the offence of accused Kamta being involved in

the criminal conspiracy of murder is also proved. Thus, the

prosecution has proved a total of 11 circumstances mentioned

above against the accused.

36

43.Thus, the prosecution has successfully proven its case by linking

the circumstances and establishing that the facts proved are

consistent only with the guilt of the accused persons and there is

no reasonable basis for the conclusion that the accused persons

are innocent. Therefore, based on the complete chain of events

and the circumstances proved against the accused persons, it is

established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons

namely Tirathlal, Pawan Marko, Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny,

Jaiprakash @ Monu and Ritesh @ Kaleji had formed a common

intention to commit the murder of deceased Durgesh Panika

between the night of 15.08.2020 and 16.08.2020, and in

pursuance of that intention, they killed Durgesh Panika by hitting

him with a jack road and caused his death, and then tried to

destroy the evidence of Durgesh Panika's murder by placing his

body in a Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing No.CG 10 AX 4299 and

throwing it on Harratola main road/street to make it look like an

accident. Similarly, it is also established beyond reasonable doubt

against all the accused persons that they had committed the

murder of Durgesh Panika.

44.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

the parties, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-

stated judgments (supra), evidence of investigating officer

Raghunandan Prasad Sharma (PW-14), postmortem report

(Ex.P-5), evidence of Dr.B.S.Paikra (PW-9) and as per FSL report

(Ex.P-55), blood was found on jack rod (Article C) and t-shirt

(Article D) seized from appellant Pawan Singh Marco, t-shirt

37

(Article E) seized from appellant Jaiprakash @ Sonu, jeans

(Article F1) and shirt (Article F2) seized from appellant Tirath Lal

Kashipuri and half pant (Article G1) and vest (Article G2) seized

from appellant Dilip Sariwan, considering the memorandum

statements of the accused / appellants and the finding recorded

by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the trial

Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the impugned

judgment warranting interference of this Court.

45.In the result, the criminal appeals being devoid of merit are liable

to be and are hereby dismissed.

46.It is stated at the Bar that the the appellants are in jail, they shall

serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.

47.The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent

back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and

necessary action.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Bablu