SURENDRA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

1056                SUPREME[2018]
                            COURT 14 REPORTS
                                     S.C.R. 1056             [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A                        SURENDRA SINGH & ANR.
                                         v.
                          STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 1768 of 2010)
 B                            DECEMBER 04, 2018
       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860:
              ss.457, 380 and 302/34 – Prosecution under – Of three
 C     accused – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction of all the three
       accused by courts below – Appeal against A-1 abated due to death
       of A-1 during pendency of appeal to Supreme Court – Held: All the
       circumstances viz. motive, accused last seen, recovery of stolen
       articles at the instance of accused and identification of the articles,
       discovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused; recovery
 D
       of blood-stained clothes of the accused and discovery of lock and
       key of the shop of the deceased at the instance of A-1, were proved
       by the prosecution with the aid of oral evidence beyond all
       reasonable doubt – It is established by the prosecution that none
       else other than the appellants were the persons involved in the crime.
 E           Constitution of India:
              Art.136 – Jurisdiction under – Scope of – Held: When two
       courts below have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, the
       Supreme Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate
       jurisdiction u/Art. 136 to appreciate the evidence afresh, unless the
 F     concurrent findings are wholly perverse or recorded without any
       evidence or recorded by misreading or ignoring the material
       evidence.
             Dismissing the appeal, the Court

 G           HELD : 1. When the two Courts below in their respective
       jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, then
       this Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate
       jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to appreciate
       the evidence afresh unless the appellants are able to point out
       that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are wholly
 H
                                        1056
  SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                       1057


perverse or are recorded without any evidence or are recorded         A
by misreading or ignoring the material evidence. [Para 30]
[1064-C-E]
      Lachman Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 167 : [1952]
      SCR 839 – referred to.
      2.1 The motive was held proved by the two Courts below          B
with the aid of ocular evidence of PWs 3, 4, 10 and 11 by the
prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
these four prosecution witnesses on this issue. Firstly, no
evidence was adduced by the defense; Secondly, no explanation
was given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings;       C
Thirdly, all the four witnesses knew each other including the
accused persons and ‘R’ because all were the residents of one
village and of nearby area. [Paras 34 and 35][1065-A-D]
      2.2 The second circumstance is of “appellants last seen”.
This was held proved by the two Courts below with the aid of          D
ocular evidence of PWs 3, 11 and 13. There is again no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of these three witnesses on this issue.
First, no evidence was adduced by the defense; Second, no
explanation was given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
proceedings and lastly, this was one of the relevant circumstances
to prove the chain of events which led to commission of the crime.    E
[Paras 37 and 38][1065-E, F-G]
      2.3 The third circumstance is of “recovery of stolen articles
at the instance of accused persons”. This was held proved with
the aid of evidence of PWs 3, 8, and 14. This was also one of the
relevant circumstances to prove the chain of events, which led        F
to commission of crime. The reason was that the deceased was
sleeping in his shop where he was found dead and several articles
kept in his shop for sale which were found missing were later
recovered at the instance of the accused persons. Neither any
evidence nor any explanation was given by the accused on              G
this issue. Therefore, there is no reason to find fault in
this circumstance for reversing the finding on this issue.
[Paras 39, 40 and 41][1065-D-G]
       2.4 The fourth circumstance is of “identification of stolen
articles”. This was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs
                                                                      H
1058               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     3 and 8. It was proved that the items recovered at the instance of
       the appellants were got tallied with the stolen items with the aid
       of these two witnesses. As there was neither any defense
       evidence and nor any explanation given by the appellants under
       Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the two Courts below were
       justified in holding the fourth circumstance as proved. It was
 B
       undoubtedly one of the relevant circumstances to prove the chain
       of the event in proving the commission of crime by the appellants.
       [Paras 42 and 43][1066-B-D]
              2.5 The fifth circumstance is of discovery of weapon of crime
       at the instance of A-3. This was held proved with the aid of
 C     evidence of PW-10. It was one of the important circumstances to
       prove the chain of events in commission of offence. Ext. Ka-20
       is the weapon “wheel-pana” that was used for assaulting deceased
       on his head. The doctor, who performed the post mortem, also
       confirmed that the injuries sustained by the deceased on his head
 D     could be caused with the use of wheel-pana. There is no reason
       to disbelieve this evidence and nor there is any material to discard
       this evidence. [Paras 44, 45 and 46][1066-D-G]
             2.6 The sixth circumstance is of “recovery of clothes
       containing human blood”. The clothes were recovered at the
 E     instance of the appellants and it was held duly proved in evidence.
       This equally is one of the relevant circumstances in proving the
       chain of events, which led to commission of the crime and there
       is no ground to hold this fact as not proved for want of any
       challenge at the instance of appellants. [Paras 47 and 48]
       [1066-F-H]
 F
             2.7 The seventh circumstance is of “discovery of lock and
       key of shop of the deceased”. This was recovered at the instance
       of A-1 and was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs-12 &
       14. [Para 49][1067-A]

 G           2.8 Thus, all the circumstances were proved by the
       prosecution with the aid of oral evidence beyond all reasonable
       doubt, which led to commission of the crime. All the
       circumstances, point the finger of guilt towards the appellants
       and their complicity in commission of the crime. It is established
       by the prosecution that none else other than the appellants who
 H     were the persons involved in the commission of offence in
  SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                             1059


question and that they conspired to eliminate the deceased.                 A
There is no perversity or arbitrariness or illegality in the
reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below,
when it was held that it is the appellants who committed the crime
in question. [Paras 50 and 51][1067-A-D]
                        Case Law Reference                                  B
[1952] SCR 839                   referred to               Para 31
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1768 of 2010.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2009 of the High              C
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CRL.A. No. 1644 of 2001 (Old
No. 2113/1996)
      C. N. Sree Kumar, Amit Sharma, P. R. Nayak, Advs. for the
Appellants.
     Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Tanmay Agarwal Advs. for the                    D
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
      1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order       E
dated 30.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
in Criminal Appeal No.1644 of 2001 (Old No.2113/1996) whereby the
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-appellants herein
and confirmed the order dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.7 of 1990.
                                                                            F
      2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is
necessary to state the relevant facts hereinbelow.
       3. Three persons, namely, Rameshwar Singh (A-1), Surendra Singh
(A-2) and Ram Singh (A-3) were prosecuted for commission of offence
of murder of one Rajendra Prasad. The Sessions Judge held all the           G
three accused persons guilty for having committed murder of Rajendra
Prasad and accordingly convicted all the three accused under Sections
457, 380 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as “IPC”). They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of
                                                                            H
1060                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
       under Section 457 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine
       of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
       imprisonment for six months under Section 380 IPC and life imprisonment
       under Section 302/34 IPC. However, all the sentences were to run
       concurrently.
 B
             4. All the three accused felt aggrieved and filed criminal appeal in
       the High Court of Uttarakhand. By impugned judgment/order, the High
       Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and the sentence
       awarded by the Sessions Judge to all the three accused.
 C            5. All the three accused, therefore, felt aggrieved by dismissal of
       their appeal and filed appeal by way of special leave in this Court. During
       the pendency of appeal, Rameshwar Singh(A-1) expired and, therefore,
       the appeal against him stood abated. The appeal is now survived for its
       consideration on merits at the instance of remaining two accused persons,
       namely, Surendra Singh (A-2) and Ram Singh (A-3).
 D
              6. The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is
       whether the two Courts below were justified in convicting the appellants,
       i.e., Surendra Singh (A- 2) and Ram Singh (A-3) for the offences in
       question or in other words, whether the prosecution was able to prove
       its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the present two appellants
 E     as was held by the two Courts below against them.
             7. In order to examine the issues, it is necessary to set out the
       case of the prosecution in brief.
              8. Rajendra Kumar (deceased) was the resident of village Amni,
 F     PS Deoprayag, District Tehri Garhwal. The deceased was running a
       shop in village for his livelihood. Rameshwar Singh (A-1) used to visit
       the village Amni to meet one person, namely, Rakshanand, who was
       involved in some unlawful trading business. Having noticed this, Rajendra
       Kumar had objected Rameshwar Singh’s (A-1) visits to Rakshanand’s
       place. Due to this, Rameshwar Singh had developed grudge against
 G     Rajendra Kumar and in retaliation he had threatened him with dire
       consequence in presence of three persons, namely, Km. Asura(PW-3),
       Smt. Surati(PW-4) and Dhirendra Prasad(PW-11).
              9. On 21.01.1990, Rajendra Kumar after taking dinner in his house
       in the night went to his shop to sleep there overnight. It is the case of the
 H     prosecution that three persons named above saw Rameshwar Singh
  SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                                1061
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

(A-1) with two more persons coming in one Maruti Van (UMT- 8062) in            A
that area from Deoprayag side prior to commission of the offence.
      10. In the midnight, the shop was found unlocked and a cash of
Rs.2000/- and some cloth items (two bundles of terry-cot, 4 Chaddars,
one pant piece, one shirt, one trouser and torch) were found missing
from the shop. Rajendra Prasad was found violently assaulted on his            B
head causing him instant death. His dead body was seen lying at a distance
of around 300 meters from water source of the village Amni next day
morning, i.e., on 22.01.1990 by Surendra Bhatt-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha,
Amni.
      11. He, therefore, lodged FIR (Ext. ka-1) around 9.35. a.m. at           C
Police Station, Deoprayag, which was around 12 KM away from the
place of occurrence. The FIR contained a narration that when Surendra
Bhatt was going to Bus Station from his house, he noticed blood stains
on the road and saw the dead body of a person lying downside of the
road whose face was hidden in bushes.
                                                                               D
       12. Thereafter, Surendra Bhatt went near to water source and
informed Sita Ram, who was taking water from there, about the incident.
Surendra Bhatt’s child was also accompanying him. He also rushed to
nearby area and called some persons. This is how 4-5 persons were
assembled there on being informed of the incident. All persons then
visited the place where the dead body was lying. It was recognized to          E
be that of Rajendra Prasad.
       13. On the basis of FIR, Head Moharir Jagdish Prasad registered
a report (Ext. Ka-8) and then also registered the case (Ext. Ka-9). The
case was then handed over to the investigating officer (IO) M.R. Dugtal,
S.I. The IO then visited the spot and prepared the inquest report on the       F
dead body (Ext. Ka-3). He also prepared the samples of seal (Ext. Ka-
10), photo lash (Ext. Ka-11), letter sent to CMO (Ext. Ka-12), challan
(Ext. Ka-13), and site plan (Ext. Ka-14). He also recorded the statement
of Surendra Bhatt. The dead body was then removed from the place
and sent for post mortem. Km. Asura, the daughter of deceased gave to          G
IO the list of stolen articles. The IO then visited the shop of the deceased
and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-15). He also took samples of blood
stains and earth in two containers. (Exts. Ka-14 and 15) and also collected
Biri (Ext. Ka-16), one match box (Ext. Ka-17), one cap (Ext. Ka-18),
one pair of chappal (Ext.Ka-19) from the spot and took them into police
custody after preparing memo (Ext. Ka-16).                                     H
1062                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A            14. Dr. N.K.Saxena conducted the post mortem and found 9
       injuries on the dead body, namely, (1) Lacerated wound 5cm x ½ cm
       bone deep on front of forehead, 4 cm above eye-brow, (2) Lacerated
       wound 3 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep, on right side lower jaw, ½ cm below
       lower lip, (3) Incised wound ½ x ½ cm on right side face, 2 cm lateral to
       injury no.2, (4) Incised wound ½ x ½ muscle deep on front of right
 B
       fragus, (5) Incised wound ½ x ½ cm muscle deep on right side face, 3
       cms below injury no.4, (6) Fracture of frontal bone, (7) Lacerated wound
       3 cm x ½ cm x bone deep, on right parietal bone, (8) Lacerated wound
       10 cm x 4 cms x bone deep, on right parietal and occipital bone and (9)
       Left ear outer part whole tear, lacerated wound which goes upto to
 C     bone- matter. All were ante mortem. On internal examination, he found
       the fracture of parietal and frontal bones of skull. He opined that cause
       of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. He
       also opined that the deceased died in the intervening night of 21-22nd
       around 8-9 p.m. The post mortem report is (Ext. Ka-5).
 D           15. The IO then recorded the statements of Km. Asura, Dhirendra
       Prasad, Madho Singh and Sada Singh. This led to arrest of the accused
       persons on 11.02.1990.
              16. On being interrogated at the instance of Rameshwar Singh
       (A-1), one bushshirt, pant, one pant piece of terry-cot, which was stolen
 E     from the shop were recovered. In addition, one blood stained jersey
       from Khoka situated at Mussorrie taxi stand, Dehradun was also
       recovered. At the instance of Surendra Singh (A-2), one blood stained
       shirt and pant, stolen shirt, pants and 2 chaddars from his house at
       Bharuwala, Dehradun were recovered. Likewise, at the instance of Ram
       Singh(A-3), one stolen pant, one shirt, two chaddars and one torch from
 F     his house were recovered. In addition, Maruti Van (UMT-8062), wheel-
       pana (Ext. Ka-20) which was used in commission of the offence, were
       also recovered from the house of one Anup Kumar at Dehradun.
             17. The IO accordingly prepared site plan of the houses of A-1,
       A-2 and A-3 and Anup Kumar (Exts. Ka-21 to Ka-24). The IO also
 G     discovered the lock and key of the shop of the deceased at the instance
       of A-1 near the road situated in village Gyuli. Accordingly, recovery
       memo (Ext.Ka-5 and site plan (Ext.Ka-25) was drawn up.
              18. The IO then got the identification of the stolen articles from
       the two daughters of the deceased-Km. Asura and Guddi, who duly
 H     identified the items to be the ones stolen from the shop of the deceased.
       Accordingly, identification memo (Ext.Ka-7) was prepared.
  SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                               1063
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       19. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed         A
and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The
prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. All the three accused
denied the prosecution case in their statement under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Cr.P.C.”). The Sessions Judge, as mentioned above, found all the three
                                                                              B
accused guilty and accordingly convicted them under Sections 457, 380
and 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them mentioned above. In appeal
filed by the accused, the High Court confirmed the order of conviction
and sentence and dismissed their appeal, which gives rise to filing of the
present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the accused
persons.                                                                      C
     20. Heard Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent.
      21. Learned counsel for the appellants(accused persons) mainly
urged five points.
                                                                              D
      22. In the first place, the learned counsel submitted that the entire
case is based on circumstantial evidence and, according to him, the
prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
      23. It was his submission that as a matter of fact this is a case of    E
no evidence against the appellants and, therefore, the conviction of the
appellants by the two Courts below is wholly unsustainable in law.
       24. In the second place, learned counsel submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove the chain of events, which was the basic
requirement in cases of circumstantial evidence to connect the accused        F
with the commission of offence and, therefore, the conviction is legally
unsustainable.
       25. In the third place, learned counsel submitted that whatever
evidence the prosecution has adduced to prove the chain of events to
connect the accused with the commission of the offence, the same is
                                                                              G
not sufficient to prove the complicity of the appellants in commission of
the crime. In any event, according to learned counsel, the evidence
adduced is not reliable for sustaining the appellants’ conviction.
      26. In the fourth place, learned counsel submitted that no motive
could be proved against the appellants for commission of the crime in
question and, therefore, the conviction is legally unsustainable.             H
1064                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A            27. And lastly, the learned counsel took us through the evidence
       and the findings of the two Courts below while elaborating his submissions
       and contended that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are
       wholly “perverse” inasmuch as they are based on the evidence which is
       not reliable for want of its quality or/and sufficiency.
 B            28. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (State) supported
       the conviction of the appellants and prayed that impugned judgment does
       not call for any interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
              29. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
       of the record of the case, we find no force in any of the submissions
 C     urged by the learned counsel for the appellants (accused).
              30. At the outset, we consider it apposite to state that when the
       two Courts below in their respective jurisdiction has appreciated the
       entire ocular evidence, then this Court would be very slow in exercise of
       its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to appreciate
 D     the evidence afresh unless the appellants are able to point out that the
       concurrent findings of the two Courts below are wholly perverse or are
       recorded without any evidence or are recorded by misreading or ignoring
       the material evidence.
             31. We consider it apposite to recall the apt words of Justice
 E     Fazal Ali, a learned Judge, while speaking for the Bench in the case of
       Lachman Singh vs. State (AIR 1952 SC 167 at page 169) when His
       Lordship observed “It is sufficient to say that it is not the function of
       this Court to reassess the evidence and an argument on a point of
       fact which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail the
       appellants in this Court.”
 F
             32. Yet, we have gone through the evidence and examined the
       findings of the two Courts below with a view to find out as to whether
       they are sustainable in law.
              33. It is not in dispute that the entire case is based on circumstantial
       evidence and that there is no eyewitness to the incident. It is, therefore,
 G
       necessary to see those circumstances which found proved by the two
       Courts below on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution for
       holding the appellants guilty for commission of the crime in question
       resulting in their conviction.

 H
  SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                               1065
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      34. First- the motive. This was held proved by the two Courts           A
below with the aid of ocular evidence of PWs 3, 4, 10 and 11 by the
prosecution. These witnesses stated that Rameshwar Singh(A-1) had a
grudge against the deceased because much prior to the date of incident,
it was seen and heard by them that the deceased used to object
Rameshwar Singh (A-1) for his having close association with one
                                                                              B
Rakshanand, who was involved in carrying illegal business in the village.
These witnesses stated that due to the deceased objecting to Rameshwar
Singh, he had threatened the deceased to kill him one day.
       35. In our view, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
these four prosecution witnesses on this issue. Firstly, no evidence was
adduced by the defense; Secondly, no explanation was given by the             C
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings; Thirdly, all the four
witnesses knew each other including the accused persons and
Rakshanand because all were the residents of one village and of nearby
area.
      36. We, therefore, find no good reason to discard their evidence        D
which, in our opinion, was rightly believed by the two Courts below for
recording the finding of fact on the question of motive against the
appellants.
       37. The second circumstance is of “appellants last seen”. This
was held proved by the two Courts below with the aid of ocular evidence       E
of PWs 3, 11 and 13. It was proved that Ram Singh (A-3) was the
driver of Maruti Van which was owned by Anup. This Maruti Van was
seen moving prior to commission of the offence in the area in question
carrying the appellants. This Van was recovered at the instance of Ram
Singh.                                                                        F
       38. In our view, there is again no reason to disbelieve the evidence
of these three witnesses on this issue. First, no evidence was adduced
by the defense; Second, no explanation was given by the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings and lastly, this was one of the relevant
circumstances to prove the chain of events which led to commission of         G
the crime.
      39. The third circumstance is of “recovery of stolen articles at the
instance of accused persons”. This was held proved with the aid of
evidence of PWs 3, 8, and 14.
                                                                              H
1066                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A            40. This was also one of the relevant circumstances to prove the
       chain of event, which led to commission of crime. The reason was that
       the deceased was sleeping in his shop where he was found dead and
       several articles kept in his shop for sale which were found missing were
       later recovered at the instance of the accused persons.
 B           41. Neither any evidence nor any explanation was given by the
       accused on this issue. We, therefore, find no reason to find fault in this
       circumstance for reversing the finding on this issue.
              42. The fourth circumstance is of “identification of stolen articles”.
       This was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs 3 and 8. It was
 C     proved that the items recovered at the instance of the appellants were
       got tallied with the stolen items with the aid of these two witnesses.
             43. As there was neither any defense evidence and nor any
       explanation given by the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings,
       the two Courts below were justified in holding the fourth circumstance
 D     as proved. It was undoubtedly one of the relevant circumstances to
       prove the chain of the event in proving the commission of crime by the
       appellants.
              44. The fifth circumstance is of discovery of weapon of crime at
       the instance of Ram Singh (A-3). This was held proved with the aid of
 E     evidence of PW-10. It was one of the important circumstances to prove
       the chain of event in commission of offence.
             45. Ext. Ka-20 is the weapon “wheel-pana” that was used for
       assaulting deceased on his head. The doctor, who performed the post
       mortem, also confirmed that the injuries sustained by the deceased on
 F     his head could be caused with the use of wheel-pana.
            46. We find no reason to disbelieve this evidence and nor there is
       any material to discard this evidence at the instance of the appellants.
             47. The sixth circumstance is of “recovery of clothes containing
       human blood”. The clothes were recovered at the instance of the
 G     appellants and it was held duly proved in evidence.
             48. This equally is one of the relevant circumstances in proving
       the chain of event, which led to commission of the crime and we find no
       ground to hold this fact as not proved for want of any challenge at the
       instance of appellants.
 H
  SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                                  1067
            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      49. The seventh circumstance is of “discovery of lock and key of           A
shop of the deceased”. This was recovered at the instance of A-1 and
was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs-12 & 14.
         50. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned are the
circumstances, which were proved by the prosecution with the aid of
oral evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, which led to commission of            B
the crime. All the circumstances, in our view, point the finger of guilt
towards the appellants and their complicity in commission of the crime.
It is established by the prosecution that none else other than the appellants
who were the persons involved in the commission of offence in question
and that they conspired to eliminate the deceased. It is proved that with
such idea in mind they entered in the shop on the intervening night of 21-       C
22nd and brutally assaulted the deceased with the aid of wheel-pana on
his head, looted his shop and took away the stolen articles with them and
threw away the body of the deceased near the downside of the road
outside the shop at a distance.
        51. We are unable to notice any kind of perversity or arbitrariness      D
or illegality in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the two Courts
below when it was held that it is the appellants who committed the crime
in question.
      52. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the
appeal. It thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.                              E


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal dismissed.



                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H