1 2025:CGHC:59649-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 15.09.2025 09.12.2025 -- 09.12.2025 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1043 of 2014 1. Guman Pal S/o . Rajauram, Aged About 29 Years R/o. Village- Jangda, P.S. Bhatapara (Rural), District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Parasram Pal S/o . Jivrakhan Pal, Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village- Dongariya, P.S. Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.- Bhatapara City, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellant No. 1 : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate. For Appellant No. 2 : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar with Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For State : Mr. Afroz Khan, PL Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. C A V Judgment Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.12.09 17:24:51 +0530 2 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 25.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 12/2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC R.I. for life with fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 year each. Under Section 201 of IPC R.I. for 04 years each with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months each. (Both sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case that in the year 2010, the deceased Tikaram Pal had purchased a land and a house from Jivrakhan Pal for 12,50,000/- and had made a payment of 5,40,000/- to him. The ₹ ₹ accused Gumanpal, used the sold house to tie the cattle. A dispute arose as the said property was not registered property under the name of the deceased. Therefore, in this regard, a civil suit was filed in Court alleging that accused Gumanpal was not vacating the purchased house, resulting in animosity between the accused and the deceased. On 15.02.2013, Tikaram Pal came to Bhatapara to meet his lawyer regarding the civil suit, but he did not return home and therefore, a writtten report was filed at Police Station- Bhatapara City by the complainant- Muralidhar Pal (PW-1) vide Ex. P/4 alleging that he has strong suspicion towards the 3 accused Parasram and Guman Pal regarding the abduction of his father. The police registered a case under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Crime No. 56/13 against the accused. Accused Guman Pal, Parasram Pal, and Chintaram were taken into custody and interrogated as they were suspected persons, their statements were recorded wherein they have stated that they have strangulated Tikaram Pal to death and thereby dumped his body in a pond in the Chaurenga forest. Based on their statements (Exs. P/7, P/8 & P/9), on 25.02.2013, the body of the deceased was recovered from Chaurenga pond vide Ex. P/10. As per Ex.P/11, the deceased was tied up with a jute sack and a stone, a search was conducted of the same. Spot map of the incident was prepared by the police vide Ex. P/12 and Ex. P/13. A jute sack and a stone were seized from the spot and a motorcycle and a mobile phone were seized from the accused Parasram Pal vide Ex.P/15 and also a motorcycle, a mobile phone were seized from the accused Guman Pal vide Ex. P/16 and a mobile phone was seized from the accused Chintaram vide Ex. P/17. Thereafter, notices were issued to the witnesses for inquest vide Ex. P/1 and prepared the inquest report vide Ex. P/2. The application for post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was given as per Ex.P/20A. Regarding the death of the deceased, a dehati morgue was registered vide Ex. P/22 and morgue was registered vide Ex. P/21. The clothes and viscera of the deceased were seized from constable Jugal Kishore vide Ex.P/23. The accused were arrested vide Exs. P/24, P/25 and P/26. As per Ex.P/29, the call details of the mobile phones of the accused persons and the mobile phone of the deceased were obtained i.e., Article A-1, Article A-2, Article A-3, Article A-4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, 4 in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Sections 364, 302 and Section 201 of IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 3. In order to establish the charges against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellants have been recorded, in which they denied the incriminating charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence that he have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Chintaram Patel of all the charges and appellant No. 1 and 2/Guman Pal and Parasram Pal of offence under Section 364 of IPC, but convicted both the appellants for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is bad, illegal, contrary to the facts and law. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the chain of circumstances is not complete and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the alleged offence and there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the appellants can be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal 5 Code. The conviction of the appellants based on surmises and conjectures and it is therefore liable to be set-aside. The evidence rendered by the prosecution, the recovery of any incriminating material or disclosure of any fact have not been proved and therefore the conviction of the appellants under the alleged offence is improper and erroneous, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserves to be acquitted of the aforesaid charges. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of Ravi Shankar Tandon vs. vs. Chhattisgarh1 and Raja Khan vs. Chhattisgarh2. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly convicted the appellants for the alleged offences and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 8. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the present appellants and another co-accused person Chintaram Patel for offence under Sections 364/34, 302 and 201 of IPC. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 526 2 (2025) 3 SCC 314 6 acquitted the co-accused Chnitaram Patel of offence of the all aforesaid charges and appellant No. 1 and 2 of offence under Section 364 of IPC, but convicted both the appellants for offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. 9. First of all we have to see whether death of the deceased Tikaram Pal was homicidal in nature or not? 10. PW- 15 Inspector D. K. Netam has stated that on 23.10.2013, he is posted as Station House Officer at Police Station- Bhatapara City and he lodged morgue as Morgue Intimation No. 02/2013 regarding the death of deceased Tikaram Pal vide Ex. P/21, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part and also lodged the dehati morgue intimation vide Ex. P/22. He also issued notice to the witnesses for inquest vide Ex. P/1 and he prepared inquest report before the witnesses vide Ex.P/2, in which admitted his signature on E to E part. During the investigation of morgue, he gave application for autopsy vide Ex.P/20-A, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part. 11. PW-1 Murlidhar Pal, PW-5 Jaiprakash, PW-10 Ramashankar Chouhan and PW-11 Ganesh Ram Verma have admitted their signatures on notice (Ex. P/1) and on inquest report (Ex. P/2) on A to A part, B to B part and C to C part. 12. PW- 14 Dr. R.K. Singh conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Tikaram Pal on 26.02.2013 and found following injuries:- External Examination:- The dead body was identified by Keju Ram, Ashwini and Constable Jugal Kishore Sahu. It was of male and partial decomposition had begun. The deceased was wearing a half- 7 shirt, full-pant, underwear and a vest. The clothes were covered with rotten tissue and mud. The face was swollen, the eyes were sunken, the tongue was protruding, and blood- mixed foam was coming out of the mouth and nose. The upper part of the skin was peeling off in places and emitted a foul odor. Both palms and soles had turned white, with a bleaching effect. The deceased's body was filled with gas, causing stiffness. Marbling (blood vessels) was visible on the surface of the body. Stool was coming out. The face was recognizable. Insect larvae were present on the deceased's body. There was no hair on the head. A scarf (gamcha) was on the deceased's body. All the muscles had become soft due to decay and their structure had become unclear. The deceased's body had become pale in places due to adiposity. He found following injuries upon the body of the deceased, which read as under:- i. Ecchymosis measuring 4.5 x 4 cm was present on the left side of the scalp. ii. A contusion was 3 x 1 cm in size at the bottom of the chin. iii. A contusion was present over thyroid prominence region on skin adjoint left side of neck measuring 2 x 1 cm. iv. A contusion measuring 2 x 1.5 cm was present in the middle part of the front neck. v. A contusion measuring 0.5 cm in diameter was present just lower to injury No. 04 and another 8 contusion measuring 1.5 x 1 cm was present adjacent to it. vi. A contusion measuring 1.5 x 1 cm was present on the upper left side of the neck, at near just above thyroid prominence. Underneath the contusion ecchymosis present, which are infiltrate blood in patches, distinctly identifiable. Fracture of left side of superior horn of thyroid cartilage with compression of body of thyroid cartilage. The left cornu of the hyoid bone was fractured and ecchymosis was present in the area and surrounding soft tissue. The injuries described above were fresh, having a reddish ecchymosis with red blood clots. These injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object within 12 hours prior to the death of the deceased and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Internal Examination:- The skull, the meninges, and the membranes of both lungs, the heart, and the heart, and the otorrhea, were softened and loose due to decay. The skull was healthy and the brain had become a brown paste-like mass. A small amount of hemolytic blood was present in liquid form in both chest cavities. The heart arteries were narrowed in circumference due to atherosclerosis to the extent of about 20%. The stomach, there was a thick mass of brownish Grey colour, which was present in the quantity of about 100 ml. In the small intestine, there was some amount of digested food and in the large intestine, there was a small amount of putrefaction. Both the lungs 9 were shrunken in size and their internal structure had moderate opacity. The liver was slightly enlarged in size and there was a greenish black colour and structural opacity of the stable stage. The membranes had turned greenish black. The internal lining was unclear. Both the kidneys had putrefaction effects and had become yellowish and rest of the body parts, which are not described above, had effects of moderate opacity. In his opinion, cause of death of the deceased was due to ante-mortem compression of neck with hard and blunt object. Further opined that the nature of death is homicidal. He gave his report vide Ex. P/20. In his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony, thus, the prosecution has successfully proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased Tikaram Pal is homicidal in nature. Learned trial Court rightly finds that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. 13. Now we have to examine the evidence to ascertain whether both the appellants had murdered the deceased Tikaram Pal or not. 14. It is clear that this case is based on circumstantial evidence and also learned trial Court finds following circumstances in para 17 of its judgment which read as under:- “ (i) the accused Guman Pal, Parasram Pal and the deceased had a previous enmity with regard to the land dispute (ii) On the basis of the statement of the accused Guman Pal and Parasram Pal, the body of the deceased Tikaram Pal was recovered from Chaurenga pond. 15. PW-1 Murlidhar Pal, PW-3 Budharu, PW-4 Om Prakash and PW-8 Dilip Kumar and PW-13 Garib Singh have stated that the deceased 10 Tikaram Pal had purchased a land for Rs. 12,50,000/- from Jivrakhan who is the father of the accused/Parasram and uncle of Guman and they executed an agreement in this regard and had made a payment of Rs. 5,40,000/-out of the said amount and the rest of the amount was agreed to be paid after the registration of the said property. 16. PW-6 M.D. Ghritlahare, Advocate has stated that the deceased Tikaram Pal was his client and on the date of incident, he came to meet him, it was around 12 noon and he left after 10 minutes. 17. All the witnesses have proved this fact that some agreement was executed between the deceased and Jivarakhan, who is the father of the accused Parasram. 18. The police has also recorded the memorandum of accused Guman Pal Pal vide Ex. P/7 on 25.02.2013 at about 12:30 pm, wherein he disclosed as under:- " …... चलो चलकर लाश, बोरा, पत्थर और उपयोग में लाये मोटरसाइकिकल को बरामद करा देता हु " 19. The police has also recorded the memorandum of accused /appellant No. 1 Parasram Pal vide Ex. P/8 on 25.02.2013 at about 12: 45 pm, wherein he disclosed as under:- “.. चलो चलकर टीकाराम की लाश, पत्थर, बोरा और उपयोग में लाये अपनी मोटरसाइकिकल को बरामद करा देता हु " 20. As per seizure memo (Ex. P/10), the dead body of the deceased Tikaram Pal was recovered on 25.02.2013 at about 14:00 pm and as per search memo (Ex. P/11) ten pieces of stone were recovered. 11 21. PW-15 Inspector- D. K. Netam has recorded the memorandum statement of co-accused Chintaram vide Ex.P/9. However, the dead body of the deceased Tikaram was recovered from the Chourenga pond as per Ex. P/10 on the basis of memorandum statement of the accused persons. 22. PW-16 A.S.I.- L.R. Giri has recorded the memorandum statement of the accused Guman Pal and Parasram Pal vide Ex.P/7 and Ex. P/8. 23. In this case, learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Chintaram Patel of all the charges leveled against him. 24. PW-1 Murlidhar Pal, son of the deceased Tikaram Pal, has stated that his father went to Bhatapara on 15.02.2013 to pay fees to his Advocate namely Shri. M.D. Ghritlahare, who was contesting the case on his behalf and he did not return home until late night, he called over his mobile phone, but it was switched off. On the morning of 16.02.2013, he came to Bhatapara and asked his relatives, but was unable to find his father. He, then filed a missing report at Police Station- Bhatapara City. On 25.02.2013, the police informed him that an unidentified body had been found in the Chourenga pond, therefore, he went to see the body and identified as his father's body and stated that his father’s hand was bandaged and a scarf (gamchha) was tied around his neck. In para 8, he admitted that when Station House Officer- D.K. Netam of Bhatapara City police station had called him to identify the dead body, which was found in the pond and that time the police arrested the accused persons. Further, he himself admitted this fact that he has complete faith that the accused persons murdered his father. In para 9 he stated as under:- "जब 12 हम लोग चौरेगा तालाब के पास पहुंचे उसके एक डेढ़ घंटे के बाद पुलिलस वाले अभि*यु्ሹगणों को लेकर आये थे। " 25. PW-2 Anjani Bai, daughter-in-law of the deceased has stated that on 15.02.2013 her father-in-law went to Bhatapra to meet his Advocate, but he did return home until late night. In para 5, she stated that her husband informed about the unidentified dead body and acknowledged that she did not accompany him to see the body. 26. PW-3 Budharu has stated that a T.I. came to us, then they went to the pond, saw the dead body of Tikaram, there was a mark of strangulation on his neck. At that very moment, the police interrogated the accused, then the accused Gumaan told that he had strangled Tikaram, Paras had held the legs of the deceased and Chinta had pressed the chest of the deceased. The accused killed his brother due to a dispute over the land. In para 5, he stated that the police brought the accused to the pond approximately one hour after they reached there. 27. PW-9 Ashwani Pal is the witness of memorandum statement of the accused, which are recorded vide Exs. P/7, P/8 and P/9, he admitted his signature on A to A part and has also admitted his signature on seizure memo (Ex. P/10) and on search panchnama (Ex. P/11) on A to A part. In para 8, he stated that the police had called him, while searching for the deceased and at that moment the deceased’s son had called him and stated that the dead body of the deceased had been found in the pond, at that time he was in Simga. In para 09, he stated as under “ मै लग*ग दो ढाई बजे किदन में चौरेगा तालाब पहुँचा था। यह सही है किक जब मैं तालाब के पास पहुँचा उस समय मृतक के पु्ቔ मुरलीधर एव बहुत सारे लोग थे। यह सही है, किक मैं जब तालाब पहुंचा तब देखा किक मृतक का शव तालाब में उपला ( पानी के उपर) किमला था। मेरे पहुँचने के पहले मृतक के शव का तालाब से बाहर नहीं किनकाले थे।". 13 In para 11, he admitted this fact that the police and the accused, who were in the custody of the police reached the spot i.e., Chourenga pond, after half an hour of his arrival. Further, admitted that by the time, the police arrived, he had already seen the deceased's body and the sack. In para 13, he admitted this fact that the accused Guman did not tell anything to the police before him near the pond. He himself admitted this fact that accused Guman had told the police in the police station before him that the deceased was murdered and thrown in the pond. In para 16, he further admitted that he signed at police station in the morning after the dead body was found. 28. PW-15 Inspector- D.K. Netam has admitted the suggestion of defence in para 10 that the deceased’s body was floating in the pond, however, he denied the suggestion that the villagers had gathered near the pond before we reached. He admitted this fact that villagers came after they reached and furthermore, admitted this fact that one witness of the recovery panchnama was from village Jangda and the other was from village Bilai Dabri. He denied the suggestion that in date of the seizure memo (Ex. P/16) overwritting has been done. However, he admitted this fact as under “ यह सही है किक ओव्हर राईिሡटग में मैने *ूलवश हस्ता्ቌर नहीं किकया है। " 29. PW-16 A.S.I.- L.R. Giri has admitted that deceased's body was found floating in the water, with some stones nearby, and that body was not fully submerged. He denied the suggestion that he had already written the memorandum statement of the accused and therefore didn't issue notices. Further, denied that he had the witnesses signed all the documents simultaneously. 14 30. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ravishankar Tandon (supra) in paras 22 to 26, which read as under:- “ 22.We therefore find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the pond at Bhatgaon was only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that nobody knew about the same before that. It is further to be noted that Ajab Singh (PW-18) has clearly admitted that he had signed the papers without reading them and that too on the instructions of the police. 23.The evidence of Ramkumar (PW-5) would show that though his statement was taken at Kunda police station, it was signed at Bhatgaon. As such, the possibility of these documents being created to rope in the accused persons cannot be ruled out. In any case, insofar as the statement of Dinesh Chandrakar (accused No. 3) is concerned, even the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not at all related to the discovery of the dead body of the deceased. As a matter of fact, nothing in his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has led to discovery of any incriminating fact. 24. Another aspect that needs to be noted is that, the only evidence with regard to recording of the memorandum of accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is concerned, is that of B.R. Singh, the then Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-16). The relevant part thereof reads thus: 15 “1. ….I wrote the statement of accused Ravi Shankaras per memorandum Ex. P-10 after taking him into custody in which my signature is on part B to B. I wrote the statement of accused· Um end as per his memorandum Ex. P-11 and accused Dinesh as per his memorandum Ex. P-12 in which my signature is on part B to B.” 25. It could thus be seen that the IO (PW-16) has failed to state as to what information was given by the accused persons which led to the discovery of the dead body. The evidence is also totally silent as to how the dead body was discovered and subsequently recovered. We find that therefore, the evidence of the IO (PW-16) would also not bring the case at hand under the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Asar Mohammad and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 and Boby v. State of Kerala 4 . 26.We therefore find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances against the appellants herein. In any case, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused persons, which is not so in the present case.” 31. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Raja Khan 3. (2019) 12 SCC 253 4. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 16 v. State of C.G,5 in para 31 as under:- 31. The question as to whether evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was considered by this Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, wherein it has been held as under: (SCC pp. 58-59, para 18) "18.... Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in State (UT of Delhi) v. Bal Krishan and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra². The words "so much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very Important and the whole force of the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the Information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The ban as Imposed by the preceding sections was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a person under police Influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the ban be the Inclusion In the confession of Information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban 5. (2025) 3 SCC 314 17 will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, In consequence of the Information thus received from him. This Information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 If the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 Is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused 18 while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that Information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. 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 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. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor is the most-quoted authority of 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. [See State of Maharashtra v. Damu².] 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 19 incomprehensible. The extent of Information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given." 32. In the light of above when tested upon the anvil of the principles and parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referenced earlier, in the present case also, it is quite evident that all the witnesses including son (PW-1 Mrulidhar Pal) of the deceased Tikaram Pal admitted that they reached the spot before the police. As per Exs. P/7, P/8 & P/9, it is evident that the police has recorded the memorandum statement of the present appellants and another co-accused Chintaram for recovery of dead body and as per Ex.P/10 recovery memo of dead body was prepared. It is also clear in this case that the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Chintaram Patel of all the charges leveled against him as the aforesaid offences would not be made out against him. All the witnesses, including police officers have admitted this suggestion of defence that the dead body was floating in the water, had not submerged in the pond. So, prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellants and other seized articles i.e., mobile phones and motorcycles have not for prosecution use, however, the prosecution has failed to prove the ownership of motorcycles and mobile phones and has also failed to prove as to how the said articles are connected to the crime-in-question. Further, no blood stain was found on the motorcycles and also location of mobile phones was not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the seizure and memorandum beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, but the learned trial Court did 20 not appreciate all these facts minutely and thereby wrongly convicted them for the aforesaid Sections. Thus, the findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 33. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 34. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023., the appellants are directed to furnish the personal bond a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 35. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE JUDGE AMIT PATEL