RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                 [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1


         RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS.                       A
                              v.
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
          (Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2008 et::.)

                    OCTOBER 20, 2010
                                                                B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 - Murder - Conviction
 based on circumstantial evidence - Prosecution of 8 accused
 - Allegation that 3 of the accused conspiring to eliminate the C
 deceased and engaging the 4 appellant-accused through
 another accused - Recovery of blood-stained articles and
 recovery of blood-stained weapons of offence at the instance
 of the accused - Serological report stating that blood-stains
 on the articles belonged to the blood-group of the deceased o
 - Panchnama supported by evidence of 10 - Eye-witnesses
 and Panch witnesses turning hostile - Conviction of the 7
 accused except the· accused who was responsible for
 engaging the 4 appellant-accused - High Court convicting the
 appellant-accused and acquitting the 3 accused who E
 conspired - On appeal, held: Conviction justified - The case
.against the appellants-accused established on the basis of
 the chain of circumstances - The witnesses' turning hostile
 does not create a dent in the case of the prosecution -
 Circumstantial evidence.
                                                                F
     Evidence:

      Circumstantial evidenct;J - Held: A false plea taken.by an
accused in a case of circumstantial evidence, is an additional
link in the chain of circumstances.                              G

     Witness:

     Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: The

                              1                                 H
    2     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A evidence of prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto
    merely because the witness turned hostile.

         Police witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Prima facie
    public servants must be presumed to act honestly and
    conscientiously - Their evidence cannot be discarded merely
8
    on the ground that being public servants they are interested'
    in the success of their case.

         The appellants (accused Nos. 1 to 4) alongwith co-
    accused (accused Nos. 5 to 8) were prosecuted for
C   causing death of one 'PR', who was the chairman of a
    Bank. The prosecution case was that accused Nos. 5 to
    7 had conspired to eliminate the said 'PR' and in
    furtherance of that conspiracy engaged the services of
    appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4. According to the
D   prosecution, when 'PR' came out of the Bank with PW-
    106 (an eye-witness), appellant-accused No. 1
    approached him with an application form and asked him
    about the- loan facility and the manner in which the form
    was to be filled. Immediately thereafter at his exhortation,
E   other appellants (accused Nos. 2 to 4) attacked 'PR' with
    knives and appellant-accused No. 1 also joined them.
    After the attack, two of the accused ran away on a motor-
    cycle. In addition to PW. 106, the incident was also
    witnessed by 8 other eye-witnesses. The application form
F   was recovered from the scene of occurrence. The
    weapons of offence and clothes of the accused were
    recovered at their instance. In the serological report,
    blood stains of group '0' were found on the application
    form, the weapons of offence, the clothes of the accused
G   and the seat of the motorcycle on which the accused had
    run away. The blood group of the deceased also
    belonged to group '0'. The trial court convicted accused
    Nos. 1 to 4 of the offences punishable u/ss. 302/34 IPC
    and u/s. 135 of Bombay Police Act. Accused Nos. 5 to 7
    were convicted of the offences punishable u/s. 302 r/w
H
 RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE                3
              OF GUJARAT
s. 120-B IPC. Accused No. 8 was acquitted of the offence       A
punishable u/s. 312 IPC. The High Court confirmed the
conviction of appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4. Accused
Nos. 5 to 7 were acquitted.
                     I

     In the instant appeals, the questions for                 B
consideration were: whether the conviction on the basis
of circumstantial evidence was correct; and whether the
conviction was justified since all the eye-witnesses did
not support the case of the prosecution as against
accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
                                                               c
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

     HELD: 1. The materials produced by the prosecution
are relevant, acceptable and rightly connected the
circumstances with the appellants. The prosecution has         0
established its case insofar as the appellants are
concerned. They have been rightly convicted and
sentenced by the trial court and their conviction and
sentence has been rightly affirmed by the High Court.
[Paras 26 and 28] [20-G-H; 21-D]
        ~
                                                               E
     2.1 In the instant case, all the eye-witnesses examined
on the prosecution side have en bloc turned hostile due
to influence and pressure of the accused persons
including a sitting MLA of the ruling party. This aspect has
been analyzed by the trial court while convicting and          F
awarding sentence on the accused/appellants. Witnesses
may lie but circumstances do not. In view of the entire
materials, particularly, the chain of circumstances, the
prosecution has been successful in bringing home the
guilt of the appellants herein for the commission of           G
murder of the deceased; and the eye-witnesses turning
hostile, does not, in any manner, crate a dent in the case
of the prosecution. All the materials and the evidence of
panchas, and circumstances, unmistakenly lead to the
conclusion that A1 to A4 are the culprits and the              H
    4    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   complicity for commission of murd~r of the deceased is
    proved. These aspects have been fully discussed by the
    trial court and rightly affirmed by the High Court. [Paras
    7 and 16] [13-E-G; 18-C-D]

       2.2 The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be
8
  rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to
  treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence
  of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or
  washed off the record altogether but the same can be
  accepted to the extent that their version is found to be
C dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. [Para 8] [14-B]

      Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC
  202; RabindraKumar Dey v. State of Orissa AIR 1977 SC
  170; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1848;
D Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
  1991 SC 1853; State of UP. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and
  Anr. AIR 1996 SC 2766; Batu Sonba Shinde v. State of
  Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 543; Gagan Kanojia and Anr. v.
  State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh
E @ Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State of UP. AIR 2006 SC 951;
  Sarvesh Naraian Shukla v. Daroga Singh and Ors. AIR 2008
  SC 320; Subbu Singh v. State (2009) 6 SCC 462; C.
  Muniappan and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu JT 2010 (9) SC
  95 - relied on.
F      3.1 The material evidence of discovery of knives
  through proper panchnamas is sufficient to connect the
  accused with the crime. As rightly believed by the trial
  court as well as the High Court as to the oral testimony
  of those panch witnesses as well as the panchnamas,
G there is no manner of doubt in the statements made by
  the accused, their willingness and the preparation of
  preliminary panchnamas and finally recovery of
  concealed knives from the places shown by the accused.
  [Para 13] [17-B-C]
H
 RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOU & ORS. v. STATE               5
               OF GUJARAT

      3.2 It is true that both the panchas (PWs 35 and 68)   A
;1ave turned hostile and did not support the case of the
prosecution, however, the panchnama (Ext. 384) was
exhibited in the cross-examination of PW-35. On
verification of the panchnama which is an application
forr_n of A1, it was found that he applied for a loan of     B
Rs.60,000/- for the purpose of purchasing rickshaw and
on the said form also, blood stains were found. In view
of the same, the said form was recovered while preparing
panchnama of the scene of offence. This document is
one of the circumstances against A1 and this evidence        C
can be relied upon to show that A1 was present at the
place of offence at the relevant time. [Para 14] [17-D-G]

    3.3 Though panchas of several other panchnamas in
respect of recovery of handkerchief, seat of motor cycle
and other articles with blood stains have turned hostile     D
and not supported the prosecution case, those
panchnamas were exhibited during the examination of
Investigating Officer and for a limited purpose and,
therefore, they can be relied upon. [Para 15] [17-H; 18-A]
                                                             E
    3.4 The perusal of the FSL report clearly shows that
the muddamal articles were found to be stained with
blood of 'O' group which is the same as blood group of
the deceased. This is also one of the important
circumstances which connect the accused with the crime.
                                                             F
[Para 16] [18-B-D]

    Mehbub Samsuddin Malek and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat
(1996) 10 sec 480 - referred to.

     3.5 The recovery of respective weapons of offence       G
at the instance of the appellants speaks volume. The
evidence convincingly establishes that the respective
places from where the recoveries were effected were
exciusively within the knowledge of the appellants and
                                                             H
    6     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   the same could not have been effected by the
    investigating agency in the absence of the disclosure
    statements made by the appellants. [Para 18] [18-G-H]

       3.6 Further, the serological report opines that the
  knives recovered at the instance of A1, A2, and A4
8
  contained blood of group '0' which is that of the
  deceased. This circumstance is highly incriminating and
  conclusively establishes the case against the appellants.
  The recovery of the blood-stained seat of the motorcycle
  used by the accused to flee from the scene of offence
C which, as per the FSL report, contained blood of group
  'O' is another vital circumstance against the appellants
  herein. All the recovery panchnamas in the instant case
  were fully supported by the panch witnesses i.e. PW-14,
  PW-15, PW-18 and PW-26. [Paras 19 and 20] [19-A-C]
D
       State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC
  507; Molai and Anr. vs. State of M.P. (1999) 9 SCC 581 -
  relied on.

         3.7 The plea taken by the appellants denying the
E   factum of recoveries at their instance, is a false plea
    inasmuch as the recoveries have been duly proved by
    the prosecution by leading cogent and reliable evidence
    which has not been shaken by the defence. A false plea
    taken by an accused in a case of circumstantial evidence
F   is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. [Para
    21] [19-D-E]

       Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
  (1984) 4 SCC 116; Mehbub Samsuddin Malek and Ors. vs.
G State of Gujarat (1996) 10 sec 480 - relied on.

         4. So far as reliance on the evidence of Investigating
    Officer is concerned. prima facie, public servants must
    be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and
    their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth
H
 RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOU &ORS. v. STATE                    7
               OF GUJARAT
and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being          A
public servants they are interested in the success of their
case. Merely because the panch-witnesses have turned
hostile is no ground to reject the evidence if the same is
based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer alone.
In the instant case, it is not the case of defence that the      B
testimony of Investigating Officer suffers from any
infirmity or doubt. [Paras 23 and 25] [20-A-B-F]

    State of UP. vs. Krishna Gopal and Anr. (1988) 4 SCC
302; State of Kera/a vs. M. M. Mathew and Anr. (1978) 4 SCC
65; Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1978) 4 SCC 435;         C
Mohd. Aslam vs. State of Maharashtra (2001) 9 SCC 362;
Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 1657 - relied
on.

     5. The acquittal of accused Nos. 5 to 7 does not in         D
any manner wash away the case against the appellants
which has been convincingly established on the basis of
circumstances. The recovery of blood-stained loan form
applica'tlon bearing name and address of appellant (A1)
from the scene of offence and the serological report             E
which opines the blood to be of group '0' which is the
blood group of the deceased, conclusively establishes the
presence of A-1 at the scene of offence. Even though the
panch-witness PW-35 has turned hostile to the
prosecution but the spot panchnama has been cogently
                                                                 F
and convincingly proved through the testimony of the
Investigating Officer PW-160. [Para 27] [21-A-C]
                     Case Law Reference:
    AIR 1976 SC 202           Relied on            Para 8        G
    AIR 1977 SC 170           Relied on            Para 8
    AIR 1979 SC 1848          Relied on            Para 8

                                                                 H
    8     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       AIR 1991 SC 1853        Relied on            Para 8
        AIR 1996 SC 2766        Relied on            Para 9
        c2002) 1 sec 543        Relied on            Para 9
        c2006) 13 sec 516       Relied on            Para 9
B
        AIR 2006 SC 951         Relied on            Para 9
        AIR 2008 SC 320         Relied on            Para 9
        c2009) 6 sec 462        Relied on            Para 9
c       JT 2010 (9) SC 95       Relied on            Para 10
        (1996) 10 sec 480       Relied on            Paras 17
                                                     and 21

D       (1984) 4 sec 116        Relied on            Para 21
        (1999) 3 sec 507        Relied on            Para 22
        (1999) 9 sec 581        Relied on            Para 22
        (1988) 4 sec 302        Relied on            Para 23
E
        (1978) 4 sec 65         Relied on            Para 23
        (1978) 4 sec 435        Relied on            Para 24
        c2001) 9 sec 362        Relied on            Para 24
F       (2004) 10 sec 657       Relied on            Para 24

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1146 of 2008.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.2008 of the High
G
    Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1422
    of 2005.

                              WITH

H Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2009.
 RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOU & ORS. v. STATE                       9
              OF GUJARAT

    Vimal Chandra S. Dave for the Appellants.                        A

     Nitin Sangra, Jesal, Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. These appeals are directed                 B
against the impugned judgment and final order dated
25.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad
in Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2005 whereby the High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants confirming the
order dated 23.08.2004 passed by the trial Court convicting          c
them under Section 302 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC') read with Section 34 IPC and also under
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act awarding each of them
to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for one year for the   D
offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and also
awarded RI for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI
for one month for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act.

    2. "The case of the prosecution" as unfolded during the          E
course of investigation was:

      (a)   On 16.09.1999, at about 1715 hrs., Prakashbhai
            Raveshia, (Chairman of Morbi Nagrik Bank, Morbi),
            the deceased, accompanied with Ashokbhai                 F
            Laljibhai Kathrani PW 106, Director in the aforesaid
            Bank came out of .the Bank. It is the case of the
            prosecution that immediately after coming out of the
            Bank, Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli - appellaht
            herein approached the deceased and asked him             G
            about the loan facility and the manner in which the
            loan application form was to be filled. During the
            course of investigation, it was further revealed that
            immediately thereafter, Ramesbhai Mohanbhai Koli
            (A 1), appellant No. 1 herein, exhorted the other        H
                                                  '•.
    10   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A              appellants (A2-A4) to attack the deceased. On such
               exhortation, A2-A4 attacked the deceased with
               knives and later on A1 joined them. During the
               investigation, it was further stated by the witnesses
               that, after the attack, two of the accused ran away
B              on a motorcycle from the place of occurrence. It is
               important to mention here that in addition to PW-
               106, the aforesaid incident was witnessed by as
               many as 8 witnesses, some of whom were natural
               witnesses being tea or pan vendor present at the
c              place of occurrence. It was further revealed that
               original Accused Nos. 5- 7 had conspired to
               eliminate Prakashbhai Raveshia and in furtherance
               of that conspiracy engaged the services of the
               appellants herein. During the panchnama (Exh.384)
               of the place of occurrence amongst other articles,
D
               a blood stained loan application form bearing the
               name and address of the appellant Rameshbhai
               Mohanbhai Koli (A1) was seized by the police. As
               regards the injuries on the person of the deceased,
               the post-mortem report (Exh. 206) revealed that the
E              deceased suffered 18 injuries out of which 17 were
               incised wounds. It may be mentioned here that
               large number of injuries/incised wounds were found
               on the neck and the chest of the deceased.

F        (b)   During the course of further investigation, after
               arrest of the appellants herein, all of them made
               separate disclosure statements showing their
               willingness to disclose the respective places where
               they had hidden the knives used in the commission
G              of offence. Pursuant to such disclosures made by
               the appellants, they led the police to the places
               where they have concealed the knives used in the
               commission of offence. The knives recovered at the
               instance of the appellants Rameshbhai Mohanbhai
H              Koli (A1), Narottam Prejji Koli (A2) and Pravin @
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE                  11
      OF GUJARAT [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
         Dalo Lashubhai Koli (A4) were stained with blood.       A
         Blood stained clothes worn by Pravin @ Dalo
         Lashubhai Koli (A4) at the time of incident were
         also got recovered. The police also recovered the
         blood stained seat of the motorcycle used by two
         of the accused to run away from the place of            B
         occurrence.

   (c)   The aforesaid articles, namely, the loan application
         form, the knives, blood stained clothes of the
         appellant Pravin @ Dalo Lashubhai Koli (A4) and
         the blood stained seat of the motorcycle were sent      c
         for forensic examination. The FSL and serological
         report (Exh 250) opined that the blood stains on the
         aforesaid articles were of group 'O'. The blood
         group of the deceased also belongs to group 'O'.
                                                                 D
   (d)   On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet
         was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Morbi who
         committed the case to the Court of Additional
         Sessions Judge at Morbi where it was numbered
         as Sessions Case No. 34 of 2000.                        E
   (e)   The Additional Sessions Judge II, Fast Track Court,
         Gondol at District Rajkot recorded the evidence,
         heard the parties, appreciated the evidence and
         vide judgment dated 23.08.2004 convicted accused
         Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and original accused No.4 for the       F
         offences punishable, as afore-mentioned, and
         original accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were convicted
         for the offences under Section 302 read with
         Section 120-8 IPC and sentenced them to suffer
         R.1 for life and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in       G
         default, R.I. for one year, and also further directed
         accused Nos. 5 and 6 each to pay Rs.1,50,000/-
         as compensation to the widow of the deceased
         Prakashbhai Raveshia. However, the trial Judge
         acquitted accused No.8 for the offences punishable      H
    12    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A               under Section 312 IPC for harbouring the accused.

          (f)   The appellants herein with original accused No.4
                preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2005 in the
                High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad challenging
B
                the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
                Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track
                Court, Gondal.

          (g)   The High Court, by the impugned judgment and final
                order dated 25.10.2007, confirmed the conviction
c               of the appellants herein and dismissed their appeal.
                However, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1544, 1925 and
                2234 of 2004 which were also heard together along
                with the present appellant's appeal and by the same
                impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction of the
D               appellant and accused No.4 and allowed the appeal
                filed by the original accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and
                acquitted them of the alleged offences and set
                aside the sentence awarded to them holding that
                there was no conspiracy.
E
         3. Heard Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave, learned counsel for
    the appellants and Mr. Nitin Sangra, learned counsel for the
    respondent-State.

    Points for determination:
F
       4. (i) Whether the High Court was justified in confirming
  the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court when
  all the eye-witnesses did not support the case of the
  prosecution as against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e., the
G appellants herein;

         (ii) Whether the Courts below are justified in convicting and
         awarding life sentence based on circumstantial evidence;

         (iii) Since the whole prosecution case hinges upon
H        circumstantial evidence which in the present case does not



                                       ~-
                                             --
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE                       13
      OF GUJARAT [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    complete the chain as there are missing links, in such            A
    event conviction is sustainable.

    5. We have carefully perused the relevant materials and
considered the rival submissions.

Discussion                                                            B

     6. It was highlighted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants were not instrumental in
committing the crime as they had no motive or mens rea to
commit murder. of Prakashbhai Raveshia who had rivalry with           c
accused Nos. 6 and 7 and who had so many enemies in
political field. It was also projected that since all the eye-
witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution turned
hostile, their statements cannot be relied upon in the absence
of other cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It was also        0
their case that the test identification parade also failed to bring
home the complexity of the appellants and mere recovery of
knife and other materials, panchnama of the scene of
occurrence and FSL Report are not sufficient to convict the
appellants.
                                                                      E
      7. In the instant case, all the eye-witnesses examined on
the prosecution side have en bloc turned hostile due to influence
and pressure of the accused persons which included a sitting
MLA of the ruling party. This aspect has been analyzed by the
trial Court while ·convicting and awarding sentence on the            F
accused/appellants. This Court has noted and observed in a
large number of cases that witnesses may lie but circumstances
do not. On going through the entire materials, particularly, the
chain of circumstances, we are satisfied that the prosecution
has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the appellants      G
herein for the commission of murder of Prakashbhai Raveshia
and the eye-witnesses turning hostile, do not, in any manner,
crate a dent in the case of the prosecution.

                                                                      H
    14    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Hostile witness

       8. It is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a
  prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because
  the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine
8 him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as
  effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can
  be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be
  dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (vide Bhagwan Singh
  v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar
C Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar v. State
  of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 and Khujji @ Surendra
  Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853).

       9. In State of UP. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and Anr., AIR
  1996 SC 2766, this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness
D would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the
  prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to
  close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is
  consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be
  relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
E Batu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC
  543; Gagan Kanojia and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13
  SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh@ Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State
  of UP., AIR 2006 SC 951; Sarvesh Naraian Shukla v. Daroga
  Singh and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 320 and Subbu Singh v. State,
F c2009) 6 sec 462.
         10. In C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, JT
    2010 (9) SC 95, this Court, after considering all the earlier
    decisions on this point, summarized the law applicable to the
    case of hostile witnesses as under:
G
         "70.1. The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be
         discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are
         admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the
         defence.
H
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE                    15
      OF GUJARAT [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    70.2. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses      A
    i.e. B. Kamal (PW.86); and R. Maruthu (PW.51) turned
    hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration
    by the courts below strictly in accordance with law.

    70.3. Some omissions, improvements in the evidence of
                                                                   8
    the PWs have been pointed out by the learned Counsel
    for the appellants, but we find them to be very trivial in
    nature.

    71. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are
    some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the          C
    entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising
    care and caution and sifting through the evidence to
    separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and
    improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to
    whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the    D
    accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be
    attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
    which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the
    basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental
    abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be            E
    attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor
    discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of
    witnesses. (vide Sohrab and Anr: v. The State of M.P.,
    AIR 1972 SC 2020; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR
    1985 SC 48; Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai v. State
                                                                   F
    of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753; State of Rajasthan v. Om
    Prakash, AIR 2007 SC 2257; Prithu@ Prithi Chand and
    Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 588;
    State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar and Ors., (2009) 9 SCC
    626 and State v. Saravanan and Anr, AIR 2009 SC 151)"          G

     11. From the analysis of the statements, answers in the
cross-examination, earlier statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and in the light of tre above
principles, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial
Court and approved by the High Court.                              H
    16    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         12. The piece of evidence which the prosecution sought
    to rely upon against the appellants is the various panchnamas
    including discovery panchnama of the weapons i.e., knives
    used in the commission ofthe offence, recovery of motorcycle,
    NC register, recovery of seat of motorcycle. The prosecution
B   highlighted that A 1 to A4 have shown their willingness to show
    the muddamal knives which have been used for murdering
    Prakashbhai Raveshia and, therefore, panchas were called and
    preliminary panchnamas were drawn and thereafter, at the
    instance of A 1 to A4 knives were recovered which were stained
C   with blood group of 'O' which is similar to the blood group of
    the deceased Prakashbhai Raveshia. The prosecution has
    examined and relied upon Rameshbhai Arjan PW-14,
    (Exh.292), who is panch witness of the discovery panchhama
    of the recovery of knife (muddamal article No. 25) at the
    instance of A3. The prosecution has also examined and relied
0
    upon the evidence of Navinchandra Parshottam Shah PW-15,
    (Exh.302), who is panch witness of the panchnama of recovery
    of knife (muddamal Article No. 37) recovered at the instance
    of A2. The other witness examined and relied on by the
    prosecution is Bhavanbhai Jagabhai Malkiya, PW-18
E   (Exh.311), who is the panch witness of the panchnama under
    which the muddamal knife (Article No. 33) was recovered at
    the instance of A4 which was used for commission of the
    offence. The prosecution has also examined and relied upon
    the evidence of Govindlal Shantilal Joshi, PW-26 (Exh.338),
F   who is the panch witness of the discovery panchnama of the
    muddamal knife (Article No. 28) recovered at the instance of
    A 1 and Ex.340 is the panchnama of the mud. These
    panchnamas are Exhs.293, 303, 312, 339 and 340. The above
    panch witnesses have confirmed the contents of panchnamas
G   in their oral testimony before the Court. They have also asserted
    that A 1 to A4 had shown their willingness and on this basis,
    the preliminary panchnama was drawn and thereafter, the
    accused have taken the panchas and the police'·personnel at
    the place )Nhere they have concealed the knives anq recovered
H   the knive~'from those places. It is true that in muddamal article
 RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE                       17
       OF GUJARAT [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
No. 25 which was recovered at the instance of A3 was not               A
having a blood stain. This aspect had been considered by the
trial Court and rightly concluded that the said muddamal article
cannot be ignored.

     13. As rightly believed by the trial Court as well as the Higti   8
Court as to the oral testimony of those panch witnesses as well
as the panchnamas, we also feel that there is no manner of
doubt in the statements made by the accused, their willingness
and the preparation of preliminary panchnamas and finally
recovery of concealed knives from the places shown by the              C
accused. This material evidence of discovery of knives through
proper panchnamas is sufficient to connect the accused with
the crime.

     14. Another important piece of evidence in the form of
panchnama of the scene of offence is Exh,384. The prosecution          D
has relied upon the oral testimony of Vijaybhai Bhagvanjibhai
Zariya, PW-35 Exh.383 and Babubhai Chakubhai Vania, PW-
68 Exh.519. It is true that both the panchas have turned hostile
and not supported the case of the prosecution, however,
panchnama has been exhibited in the cross-examination of PW-           E
35. As requested by the State counsel, we verified the said
panchnama which is available in the paper-book (vide page No.
2081) which is an applicatiori form bearing No. 001351 of A1
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Vaghani with his residential address
was found wherein he applied for a loan of Rs.60,000/- for the         F
purpose of purchasing rickshaw and on the said form also
blood stains were found. In view of the same, the said form was
recovered while preparing panchnama of scene of offence. This
document is one of the circumstances against A 1 about his
presence at the time of occurrence at the place of incident. This      G
evidence can be relied upon to show that A 1 was present at
the place of offence at the relevant time.

    15. In the same manner, though panchas of several other
panchnamas in respect of recovery of handkerchief, seat of
motor cycle and other articles with blood stains have turned           H
    18     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   hostile and not supported the prosecution case, those
    panchnamas were exhibited during the examination of
    investigating officer and for a limited purpose, therefore, they
    can be relied upon.
                              ..

B         16. Yet another piece of evidence is FSL report (Exh.250),
    forwarding letters of muddamal weapons, clothes, etc. which
    are at Exhs. 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 and 250
    respectively. The perusal of the FSL report clearly shows that
    the muddamal articles were found to be stained with blood of
c   'O' group which is the same as blood group of the deceased
    Prakashbhai Raveshia. This is also one of the important
    circumstances which connect the accused with the crime. All
    these materials and the evidence of panchas, as discussed,
    and circumstances, unmistakenly lead to the conclusion that A 1
0   to A4 are the culprits and the complicity for commission of
    murder of the deceased is proved. These aspects have been
    fully discussed by the trial Court and rightly affirmed by the High
    Court. We also agree with these aspects in toto.

       17. In Mehbub Samsuddin Malek and Others vs. State
E of Gujarat, (1996) 1O sec 480, this Court held that recovery
  of gupti at the instance of the accused from a dilapidated
  building concealed below a heap of earth which found stained
  with human blood group of 'B'. Clothes of the deceased also
  stained with the same blood group, to lead evidence regarding
F discovery of blood cannot be disbelieved merely because the
  house is in a dilapidated condition and it cannot be said that
  the gupti was found from an open place accessible to all.

       18. The recovery of respective weapons of offence at the
G instance of the appellants in the instant case speaks volume.
  The evidence in the present case convincingly establishes that
  the respective places from where the recoveries were effected
  were exclusively within the knowledge of the appellants and the
  same could not have been effected by the investigating agency
H in the absence of the disclosure statements made by the
  appellants.
 RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE                    19
       OF GUJARAT [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     19. Another factor which strengthens the case of the           A
prosecution against the appellants is the serological report
which opines that the knives recovered at the instance of A 1,
A2, & A4 contained blood of group 'O' which is that of the
deceased. This circumstance is highly incriminating and
conclusively establishes the case against the appellants. All the   B
recovery panchnamas in the instant case were fully supported
by the panch witnesses i.e. PW-14, PW-15, PW-18 and PW-
26.

      20. The recovery of the blood-stained seat of the
motorcycle used by the accused to flee from the scene of            C
offence which as per the FSL report contained blood of group
'O' is another vital circumstance against the appellants herein.

     21. The appellants herein have denied the factum of
recoveries at their instance is a false plea inasmuch as the        D
recoveries have been duly proved by the prosecution by leading
cogent and reliable evidence which has not been shaken by
the defence. A false plea taken by an accused in a case of
circumstantial evidence is an additional link in the chain of
circumstances. [Vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of          E
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Mehbub Samsuddin
Malek & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 10 SCC 480].

     22. We have already observed that the prosecution has
established that FSL report has clearly certified that the b1ood
found on the knife was of human origin. This question fell for      F
consideration in State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram & Ors.,
(1999) 3 SCC 507 and this Court held that it would be an
incriminating circumstance if the blood on the weapon was
found to be of human origin. The same view has been
reiterated in Mo/ai and Another vs. State of M.P., (1999) 9         G
sec 581.
Evidence of Investigating Officer

    23. An argument was advanced about reliance based on
                                                                    H
    20    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A the evidence of investigating officer. This Court in State of UP.
  vs. Krishna Gopa/ and Another, (1988) 4 SCC 302 has held
  that courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by
  applying the well recognized test of basic human probabilities.
  Prima. facie, public servants must be presumed to act honestly
B and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on
  its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground
  that being public servants they are interested in the success of
  their case. [vide State of Kera/a vs. M. M. Mathew & Anr.,
  (1978) 4 sec 65)1
c      24. In Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 SCC
  435, it was observed that where the evidence of the
  investigating officer who recovered the material objects is
  convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected
  on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the
D prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in Mohd.
  As/am vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 9 SCC 362. In Anter
  Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657, it was
  further held that even if panch witnesses turn hostile, which
  happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the
E person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated.

           25. This Court has held in large number of cases that
    merely because the panch-witnesses have turned hostile is no
    ground to reject the evidence if the same is based on the
F   testimony of the Investigating Officer alone. In the instant case,
    it is not the case of defence that the testimony of Investigating
    Officer suffer from any infirmity or doubt. [Vide Modan Singh's
    case (supra) Krishna Gopal's case (supra) and Anter Singh's
    case (supra)].
G        26. In view of the above principles and in the light of the
    discussion about the recovery as stated and concluded earlier,
    those materials produced by the prosecution are relevant,
    acceptable and rightly connected these circumstances with the
    appellants.
H
 RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLi & ORS. v. STATE                     21
       OF GUJARAT [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     27. Finally, appellants relied on the acquittal of co-accused   A
Nos. 5 to 7. The acquittal of accused Nos. 5 to 7 does not in
any manner wash away the case against the appellants which
has been convincingly established on the basis of
circumstances. It is relevant to note that the recovery of blood
stained loan form application bearing name and address of            B
appellant Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli (A 1) from the scene of
offence and the serological report which opines the blood to
be of group 'O' which is the blood group of the deceased
conclusively establishes the presence of A-1 at the scene of
offence. Even though the panch-witness PW-35, Vijaybhai has          C
turned hostile to the prosecution but the spot panchnama has
been cogently and convincingly proved through the testimony
of the Investigating Officer PW-160.

      28. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to
accept the case of the appellants, on the other hand, we are         D
satisfied that the prosecution has established its case insofar
as the appellants and rightly convicted and sentenced by the
trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The appeals are
devoid of any merits, consequently, they are dismissed.
                                                                     E
K.K.T.                                     Appeals dismissed.