G. Malaviya and N.B. Asthana, JJ. - (1.) Appellants Ram Lakhan, Baleshwar alias behra, Prem Singh and Pramod alias Ramesh alias Kalia were convicted under Sections 396, 307 and 412 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death for the offence under Section 396 Indian Penal Code for five years R.I. under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and to seven years R.I. under Section 412 Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1994 decided on 8.2.1995 by Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By the same judgement and order in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1994 Pramod alias Kalia alias Ramesh was also convicted under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. All the sentences were, however, made to run concurrently. One Jageshwar alias Surjeet alias Sarvendra was also tried along with the appellants. In the F.I.R. his name was stated to be Surjeet. The trial court acquitted him on the ground of the failure of the prosecution to prove that Surjeet is the alias of Jageshwar. The above crimes are said to have been committed in the night of 17/18.2.1994 at the house of Kanhaiya in village Sudhowala, Police Station Sahaspur, Dehradun. Towards the south-east side of the house of deceased Kanhaiya is Uttarkhand Woolen Yarn Factory. In fact the house of Kanhaiya is situate within the compound of the aforesaid woolen factory (hereinafter referred to as Factory). Towards the north-east of the factory are the huts of Prem Singh and Baleshwar accused. Towards the north-west side of the house of Kanhaiya is the house of Amar Singh. Factory is surrounded on three sides by the fields in which the crop was growing at that time. Towards the southern side of factory is Chakrata Dehradun Road. Ram Lakham also resided at a small distance from the house of Kanhaiya. Accused Pramod alias Ramesh alias Kalia and Jageshwar alias Surjeet used to visit the house of Ram Lakhan, Baleshwar alias Behra and Prem Singh. Ram Lakhan is related to Kanhaiya and as such P.W. 1 Km. Geeta alias Seeta (hereinafter referred to as Km. Geeta) daughter of Kanhaiya. All the five accused used to come to the house of Kanhaiya and as such P.W.1 Km. Geeta alias Seeta (hereinafter referred to as Km. Geeta) daughter of Kanhaiya, knew them. Along with Kanhaiya his wife Urmila, P.W. 1 Km. Geeta and her Mausi Sukhdo Devi were residing. In the night of occurrence at about 9 P.M. all the accused came to the house of Kanhaiya. Inmates of the house were talking to each other and the lamp was kept lighted there. They had also a dog which was sitting there. All the five accused came there. Ram Lakhan asked that the dog be tied up upon which Kanhaiya tied it. After a while Ram Lakhan asked Kanhaiya to come with him to the jungle in order to bring the wood. Kanhaiya followed Ram Lakhan. Accused Prem Singh was left at the house of Km. Geeta. The other accused also accompanied Kanhaiya. After some time all the four accused came but Kanhaiya did not accompany them. Smt. Urmila Devi asked these accused as to where her husband was whereupon they told her that he is coming in a while. Kanhaiya, however, did not return whereupon Ram Lakhan accused asked Smt. Sukhdo Devi to accompany them to search Kanhaiya. Baleshwar accused was left at the house. The remaining four accused accompanied Smt. Urmila Devi to the jungle in order to search Kanhaiya. After some time the four accused came back but neither Kanhaiya nor Smt. Urmila Devi accompanied them. P.W. 1 Km. Geeta alias Sita inquired from the accused as to where her parents were, upon which accused Ram Lakhan hurling abuses upon P.W. 1 Km. Geeta alias Sita said that she was talking too much and she be dis-honoured. her mausi Smt. Urmila protested and said that if any body touched her she would report the matter to the police. The accused then started dragging P.W. 1 Km. Geeta. Smt. Urmila rebuked the accused on which all the accused started beating her and dragged her out of the house. Smt. Urmila was crying. After some time, the cries of her Mausi stopped. All the accused came inside the house. Ram Lakhan inflicted a Katari blow upon the neck of P.W.1 Km. Geeta which/she warded of with her hand. Ramesh and other accused who were armed with Chhoori and knife inflicted injuries upon her mouth and neck. She fell down on the ground. The accused thought that she was dead and then the accused took away all the belonging of Kanhaiya's house. P.W. 1 Km. Geeta became un-conscious and remained so till the next date when at about 4 P.M. P.W.4 Km. Nisha daughter of Jaman Singh whose house is situate at a small distance towards the southern side of the factory came to meet P.W.1 Km. Geeta. She called her from outside the house but as there was no response she went inside the house and saw P.W. 1 Km. Geeta lying there injured. She stated in her statement that P.W.1 Km. Geeta told her that some ruffians had inflicted injuries upon her and that her Mausi had also been killed, where upon she went to P.W. 7 Dhan Singh Chowkidar of the factory who along with P.W.5 Pritam Singh came to the ouse of Kanhaiya. They found P.W.1 Km. Geeta lying injured. She told them in low voice that Ram Lakhan, Prem Singh, Ramesh and Baleshwar had abducted her parents and had killed her Mausi and injured her. In the meantime the villagers had also collected. They took P.W. 1 Km. Geeta to the Hospital. P.W. 7 Dhan Singh came to P.W. 6 Chandra Pal Singh Pradhan of the village, got the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-4 of the incident scribed by him, put his signature upon it and reached Police Station Sahaspur where he handed over this report to P.W. 8 H.C. Suresh Chandra. On the basis on this F.I.R. he prepared check report Ext. Ka-29 made its entry in the General Diary and registered a case. The first Information Report was also signed by P.W.6 Chandra Pal Singh. In this F.I.R. the names of four accused namely Ram Lakhan, Ramesh, Baleshwar and Prem Singh have been given. P.W. 5 Pritam Singh in his statement gave out that P.W. 1 Km. Geeta had told the names of five accused namely Ram Lakhan, Ramesh, Baleshwar, Surjeet and Prakash. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 15 S.S.I. Harendra Singh who was posted as Station Officer Police Station Sahaspur. He along with S.I. Lala Ram Pal reached the place of incident. The dead body of Kanhaiya was found at a distance of about 160 steps from the house. The dead body of Smt. Urmila was found at a distance of about 150 paces from the house of deceased Kanhaiya. Both the dead bodies were lying in the fields. The dead body of Smt. Sukhdo Devi was found at a distance of 12 paces from the house of the deceased. Under the instructions of the Investigating Officer S.I. Lala Ram Pal prepared the inquest reports of the three dead bodies (Exts. Ka-1, Ka-2, Ka-3). P.W.3 Kunwar Singh is a witness of these Panchayatnamas. S.I. Lala Ram Pal also prepared other required papers and sent the dead bodies through P.W.2 Constable Narottam Dass, Constables Anil Kumar and Ram Das for post-mortem examination. P.W. 14 Dr. P.K. Nautiyal conducted the Postmortem examination of these three dead bodies on 19.2.1994. He found the following ante-mortem injury upon the dead bodies of Smt. Sukhdo Devi:- 1. Incised wound with sharp margin 6 cms. x 4 cms. bone deep with muscles, vessels, nerves, tracrea and oesophagus found cut. Four ounces of undigested food was found in the stomach. Nothing abnormal was detected. According to him the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above injury. Upon the dead body of Smt. Urmila wife of Kanhaiya he found the following injuries:- 1. Incised wound with sharp margines in an area of 3 cms. x 2 cms. muscles deep with muscles, vessels, nerves cut under neath over right side neck, 6.5 cms. below right ear. 2. Abraded contusion with traumatic swelling in an area of 10 cms. x 8 cms. over right side face around right ear. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 2 could have been caused by dragging also. Upon the dead body of Kanhaiya following anti-mortem injuries were found:- 1. Incised wound 8 cms. x 2.5 cms., vessels deep in the midline over theperunvea region with vessels and nerves cut under neath with whole of serolium cut and removed. Both tests were found missing. 2. Abrasion on the shole of vential aspect of penis in an area of 7.5 cms. x 3.5 cms. Injury No. 1 was caused by some sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 2 could have been caused by friction and also by dragging. The dead bodies were about two days old according to Dr. Nautiyal. They could have been murdered at about 10 P.M. on 17.2.1994. He proved Postmortem examination reports Exts. Ka-16, Ka-17 and Ka-18 and stated that these injuries could have been caused by knife and similar other sharp edged weapon. The Investigating officer thereafter recorded the statements of P.W.8 H.C. Suresh Chand, P.W.7 Dhan Singh and P.W.1 Km. Geeta. He then inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-18. He collected blood stained and simple earth from the place where the dead bodies of Smt. Sukhdo Evi and Urmila were found. He prepared its memo Ext. Ka-7 and Ext. Ka-8. He got the case converted under Section 396, 307 and 324 Indian Penal Code. On 19.2.1994 he arrested accused Ram Lakhan, Baleshwar and Prem Singh. He recorded the statement of Ram Lakhan who made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and volunteered to get the Katari said to have been used in committing the crime recovered. The Investigating Officer brought him to village Sudhowala where he collected P.W.5 Chandra Pal Singh and Jaman Singh. This accused led the police party and the witnesses to the shrubbs near the house of deceased Kanhaiya and got the Katari Ext. 138 recovered. Its recovery memo Ext. Ka-5 was prepared by the Investigating Officer which was signed by P.W.5 Chandra Pal Singh and Jaman Singh. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-45 of the place of recovery. It is at a distance of about 10 paces from the house of the deceased by the side of the fields of Lekhpal towards the eastern side of the factory. On 20.2.1994 P.W. 11 S.I. Naresh Chand Verma at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun alongwith S.I. S.N. Pandey, Station Officer, D.B.S. Malik and Constables of the same police Station was on check and Gusht duty. At about 3.30 A.M. a secret informer informed him that accused Pramod, Behari and Bindal of this case (in the F.I.R. his name has been stated as Ramesh. He has alias of Pramod and Kalia) are planning at Karli Road to go some where in a Vikram (Three Wheeler) through the passage over the river. Upon getting this information the police party rushed towards that road in the passage, they collected P.W.10 Sanjay Kumar and Raj Kumar and reached near bridge of the river. The informer pointed towards Pramod. He was apprehended by the police party and interrogated. He made disclosure statement and volunteered to get Chhoori said to have been used in the commission of the crime, a box and an attache, which are said to have been looted from the house of Kanhaiya, recovered. He led the police party and the witnesses in the jungle of the Karli Road, removed earth from a place under a tree and took out from the pit and handed over to the police party an attache, Ext. 1, Box Ext. 14 and blood stained Chhoori Ext. 139. These articles were sealed and the recovery memo Ext. Ka-13 was prepared by this witness under the direction of S.I. S.N. Pandey. He then returned to the police station along with the arrested accused and the recovered articles. He lodged the F.I.R. of this incident Ext. Ka-17 which was taken down by H.C. Rameshwar Prasad Tyagi, its entry was made in the General Diary Ext. Ka-48 by him and Crime No. 114 of 1994 under Sections 25/4 and 412 Indian Penal Code was registered. Its investigation was taken up by P.W. 16 S.I. Ishwar Singh Tomar who was posted as Sub-Inspector at police outpost Patel Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun. On 20.2.1994 he made the copies of the check report and entry in the General Diary recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Rameshwar Prasad Tyagi and of the accused. On 21.2.1994 he recorded the statement of S.I. D.P.S. Malik and along with him reached the place of recovery and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-4 of this place. On 4.3.1995 he recorded the statement of S.I. S.N. Pandey and others. On 16.3.1994 he recorded the statement of P.W. 11 S.I. Naresh Chand Verma on 11.4.1994 he recorded the statement of other police personnel and on the same day the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-49 against accused Pramod under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act was filed. On 20.2.1994 the Investigating Officer P.W. 15 S.S.I. Harendra Siangh was informed on Wireless Set about the recovery of the box, Attache and Chhoori from accused Pramod. He went there and recorded the statement of accused Pradmod alias Ramesh. He also made copies of recovery memos. On 22.2.1994 he sent the blood stained clothes for chemical examination. On 23.2.29914 he recorded the statement of P.W.4 Km. Nisha, P.W.6 Chandra Pal Singh and P.W.3 Kunwar Singh witness of Panchayatnama. On 24.3.1994 he recorded the statement of P.W.5 Pritam Singh. On 21.4.1994 he recorded the statement of P.W. 11 S.I. Naresh Chand Verma. he also prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-20 of the place from where these articles were recoverd. The statement of P.W. 12 S.I. Dalbir Singh Yadav was recorded on 13.5.1994 and after completing the investigation he submitted the charge sheet Ext. Ka-22 against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity and Ranjish. They, however, did not adduce any evidence in defence. The trial court upon a consideration of the evidence and other material placed on record found Jageshwar alias Surjeet alias Sargendra not guilty of the offence as it was not proved that he was the fifth person involved in the crime. The appellants were found guilty and sentenced as stated above. They have now come to this court in appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 1995 was preferred by Ram Lakhan, Baleshwar and Prem Singh from Jail. One of the co-accused Pramod alias Kalia filed the appeal through Sri Vinay Singh. On our request Sri Vinay Singh agreed to argue the appeal also on behalf of Ram Lakhan, Baleshwar and Prem Singh. We accordingly appointed him amicus curie on behalf of these appellants. We have heard Sri Vinay Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. and have perused the record. It was urged that P.W. 1 Km. Geeta is the only ocular witness of the incident, her testimony was disbelieved in so far as the participation of Jageshwar alias Surjeet alias Sargendra was concerned that recovery of pajeb from his possession was also disbelieved by the trial court and therefore Conviction of the appellants could not have been based on the testimony of Km. Geeta. In this connection it was also stated that as the participation of Jageshwar has not been established, the four appellants could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 496 Indian Penal Code. The name of Jageshwar was not cited in the F.I.R. According to P.W. 7 Dhan Singh who lodged the F.I.R. the names of only four accused were told to him by P.W.1 Km. Geeta. According to P.W.5 Pritam Singh who went along with P.W.7 Dhan Singh to the house of Kanhaiya, P.W.1 Km. Geeta told the names of all the five accused. In her statement P.W.1 Km. Geeta stated that Surjeet, Ramesh, Prem Singh, Baleshwar and Ram Lakhan came to her house at about 10 P.M. and that she knew all the accused from before. She stated that Ram Lakhan was her sister's husband and that the wife of Ram Lakhan used to address her father as Phupha and mother as Phuphi. Two of the other accused were living near by and the other two used to come to her house along with the three accused. She, however, did not said that Jageshwar was also known by the name of Surjeet. It appears that for the first time while the recovery memo Ext. Ka-14 was being prepared regarding the recovery of Pajeb from this accused, it came to light that the real name of Surjeet is Jageshwar and that he bears alias of Surjeet. This recovery memo does not reveal that Jageshwar is also known as Sarvendera. Information given to the police party which arrested this accused was that Jageshwar connected with the crime in question in standing at Kavli Road, and is trying to go to the other side of the river. The witnesses who had collected there also were disclosed the name as Jageshwar. P.W. 12 S.I. Dalbir Singh Yadav who accompanied the police party stated that upon enquiry the arrested person told his name as Jageshwar alias Surjeet alias Sargendra while in the recovery memo the name of the accused given Jageshwar alias Sargendra alias Surjeet. The memo of arrest Ext. Ka-14 did not disclose the name of Jageshar as Sargendra. it appears that since the identity of the fifth accused was not established on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. From the mere fact that he was acquitted on the ground that his identity was not established, it cannot be said that only four persons were involved in this crime. It is no doubt correct that P.W. 4 Km. Nisha in her statement gave out that P.W. 1 Km. Geeta had not told the names of the accused and had only told her that some miscreants have murdered her Mausi and injured her, may have led to the conclusion that the murder was committed by un-known persons. P.W.7 Dhan Singh and P.W. 5 Pritam Siangh came immediately thereafter. According to P.W.5 Pritam Singh she told the names of five persons. According to P.W. 7 Dhan Singh only four names were told. It may be that P.W. 7 Dhan Singh could not hear the name of the fifth accused and therefore lodged the report against four persons alone. P.W.5 Pritam Singh has clearly stated that Km. Geeta named fifth of the miscreants also. In her statement as given out by her in cross-examination she has told the names of all five persons. We do not think it can be argued that only four persons participated in the crime. Merely, on the ground that Jageswar was acquitted, it cannot be argued that the testimony of P.W.1 Km. Geeta should not at all be believed. It is not the law that in case a person was found not to speak truth regarding a part of the story, his testimony as a whole is to be discarded. It was then urged that she did not see the appellants committing the murder of any of the three dead persons and as such her testimony did not connect the appellants with the crime. It may be noted that in her examination-in-chief she clearly stated that four of the accused took her father with them but his father did not return back then her mother went with them to search her father and then she did not return back and then her Mausi was dragged out of the house that she cried for some time and then she was silenced. The three dead were last seen in the company of the accused and then their dead bodies were found. In the circumstances if the statement of P.W. 1 Km. Geeta is to be believed then the accused would stand connected with the crime and it can easily be taken that they were the persons who committed this crime. In this connection it was also argued that the recovery of Pajeb from accused Jageshwar was not found proved by the trial court. P.W.1 Km. Geeta is not a witness of this recovery. The recovery was made by two Sub Inspectors of the Police. No public witness had witnessed this recovery. If in the circumstances the trial court disbelieved the evidence of recovery, it would not lead to the conclusion that P.W. 1 Km. Geeta is not speaking the truth. As she has named all the accused in her statement under Section 161 Criminal procedure Code stating that she knew them from before there was no question of putting these accused for test identification. It may be noted that nothing specific has been suggested either to P.W. 1 Km. Geeta or to P.W.5 Pritam Singh or to P.W. 7 Dhan Singh to indicate that they were on inimical terms with the accused or had any animus to implicate any of them falsely. Nothing specific was suggested to Investigating Officer or any other member of the police force connected with the recovery and investigating of this crime to show that they had any motive to implicate the accused falsely. It was argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive for the accused to commit this crime. Motive is not the sine qua non of the offence of murder. Some time the motive is clear. Some time it is shrouded in mystery. The presence of motive lends credence to the prosecution evidence but its absence does not lead to any adverse inference against the prosecution evidence. Had Kanhaiya been alive then he would have thrown some light on the motive of the accused to commit the crime. The testicles of Kanhaiya were found cut at the time of Postmortem Examination and the remark of Ram Lakhan accused when P.W.1 Km. Geeta enquired about the whereabouts of her parents that she be dishonoured would give indication of the motive for the crime. It appears that the matter was not investigated with a view to finding the motive for committing the crime nor P.W.1 Km. Geeta was examined to find out as to whether she was sexually assaulted. it may be that in order to save her honour P.W. 1 Km. Geeta did not volunteer to give any information regarding it. From a perusal of the site plan it is clear that there is no abadi in the vicinity of the house of Kanhaiya. It is, therefore, not surprising that the shrieks of Smt. Sukhdo Devi or Km. Geeta did not attract any neighbour. Her parents were done to death in the jungle. No question, therefore, of hearing their shrieks by the villagers arises. The incident had taken place in the night and in winter season. People at that time must be inside their houses. It was argued that it may be accepted that P.W.1 Km. Geeta did not inform any one in the night for the fear of the accused but it cannot be believed that till about 4 P.M. when P.W.4 Km. Nisha came to her house, she would not have told any one regarding the incident. The argument is that had the incident taken place as alleged by the prosecution then in the morning she would have certainly tried to inform someone about the incident. It may be noted in this connection that the accused did not question the date, time and place of incident. They have denied their involvement in crime. In view of unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 Km. Geeta upon this point, it cannot be argued for a moment that the incident did not take place in the night P.W.1 Km. Geeta in her statement gave out that after being injured she fell down and after some time became unconscious. The accused taking her to have died removed the articles from inside the house. In her cross examination she gave out that when P.W.4 Km. Nisha came to her, she was lying outside the house. In her cross examination, she also gave out that in the night she was in semi conscious state. She stated that she had come once inside the house after dragging herself in order to find as to what articles have been removed by the accused and then she again went outside the house where she remained till P.W.1 Km. Nisha came. It appears that on account of injuries inflicted upon her and on account of shock as a result of the murder of Smt. Sukhdo Devi and the disappearance of her parents whom she thought were probably dead she was shocked and dazed and did not cry for help thinking that all the family members have been killed and her life is rendered miserable, no useful purpose would be served by crying for help. Simply from the fact that before the arrival of P.W.4 Km. Nisha she did not cry for help, it cannot be said that the incident did not take place in the manner as alleged. It was argued that according to P.W.4 Km. Nisha, P.W.1 Km. Geeta did not tell the names of any of the accused which would indicate that the crime was committed by some un-known person. P.W.1 Km. Geeta in her cross examination gave out that she had told the names of all the five miscreants to Km. Nisha. It appears for some reason or another Km. Nisha did not want to tell the names of the accused and for that reason she stated that the names of the accused were not told to her, she should have been declared hostile and confronted with her statement given under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. However, the State Counsel conducting this triple murder case did not think of confronting her with statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code on this commission. In her cross examination she also gave out that she did not find any blood near the scene of occurrence. In her examination-in-chief she gave out that P.W.1 Km. Geeta was lying inside the room soaked in blood. She was told by Km. Geeta that her Mausi has also been done to death. Her Mausi was lying at a distance of 12 paces from the house of Kanhaiya. She must have certainly noticed it. The fact that in her cross examination she denied seeing any blood near the place of incident, would go to show that she was not prepared to speak the entire truth. In these circumstances her statement that Km. Geeta did not tell her the names of the accused cannot be accepted, especially, when P.W.1 Km. Geeta gave out that the names of all the accused were told to Km. Nisha and this statement finds corroboration from the testimony of P.W.5 Pritam Singh. P.W.1 Km. Geeta is a truthful witness. She had no reason to implicate the appellants falsely. Her testimony cannot be disbelieved on the ground that one of the accused namely Jageshwar was acquitted. This acquitted as already stated is not based upon her testimony but on the ground that prosecution failed to establish that Surjeet is alias of Jageshwar and he is also known by the name of Survendra. This acquittal does not cast any doubt upon the veracity of P.W.1 Km. Geeta. It was argued that appellant Pramod alias Ramesh alias Kalia was not known to P.W.1 Km. Geeta from before and that he should have been put for test identification and in the absence of test identification the statement of P.W.1 Km. Geeta cannot be taken to implicate this appellant. It was argued inthis connection that the fact that P.W.1 Km. Geeta identified this appellant in the court would not make any difference. Reliance was placed upon the statement of P.W. 1 Km. Geeta given in cross examination wherein she stated that on the date of occurrence she did not know the names of other accused, that she recognised them by face, that after two days of the incident the Sub Inspector had brought to the hospital all the except Ram Lakhan and that she had recognised them. She went on to say that Sub Inspector had not asked the names of the aforesaid four persons in his presence. In her cross examination on behalf of Pramod she gave out that she had told the names of all the five accused to the Investigating Officer and that when these accused had come to his house for the first time then they had told their names. Her statement when read as a whole would clearly prove that she knew all the five accused from before. If the Investigating Officer in order to make sure that the persons arrested by him are the real assailants brought them before P.W.1 Km. Geeta it would not lead to the conclusion that she did not know their names from before. It appears under stress of cross examination she stated that she did not know the four appellants except Ram Lakhan from before. It may be noted that it was not suggested to her in cross examination that she did not accused Pramod from before. No cross examination was directed to elicit that the real name of Ramesh is Pramod. At the time of examination Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code he gave out his name as Pramod alias Ramesh. Apart from the ocular evidence of P.W. 1 Km. Geeta looted articles were recovered at the pointing out of accused Pramod. It was urged that in the F.I.R. no mention was made regarding the removal of articles by the culprits and therefore no question of any recovery from the possession of appellant Pramod arises. P.W.1 Km. Geeta was in an agony at the time P.W.7 Dhan Singh came to see her. Her parents were un-traceable and her Mausi was murdered. She was in doubt as to whether her parents were in fact alive. If in this agony she did not tell P.W.7 Dhan Singh about the removal of articles from her house, it would not lead to the conclusion that articles as stated by her were not removed. These articles have not been claimed by the accused. They were put for test identification P.W.1 Km. Geeta correctly picked them. P.W.9 Sri K.D. Jawatha S.D.M. got the articles identified from P.W.1 Km. Geeta on 16.5.1994. The details of the articles clearly indicate that they were house hold articles. All the required precautions were taken at the time of test identification. There is no reason why reliance should not be placed upon this test identification. P.W.10 Sanjai Kumar has clearly deposed about the recovery of one tin box and an attache case along with blood stained chhoori at the pointing out of this accused. Sanjai Kumar is an independent witness. There is no reason why his testimony should not be believed. Certain contradictions in the statements of witnesses are natural and probable unless they have been thoroughly tutored. No contradiction exist on the material points of recovery. The chhoori said to have been recovered from the possession of this accused was sent for chemical examination. The report of the chemical examiner is that human blood was found over this chhoori as well as over the katari recovered from accused Ram Lakhan. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that no articles were removed by the appellants from the house of P.W.1 Km. Geeta, her testimony along with the recovery of chhoori at the instance of Pramod appellant should clearly establish his involvement in crime. In the presence of P.W.6 Chandra Pal Singh Katari was recovered at the instance of appellant Ram Lakhan. There is nothing on record to assail his testimony in this respect. This Katari as stated above was found to contain human blood. In view of the discussions made above the involvement of the four appellants in crime in question has clearly been established. They were rightly convicted by the trial court. In so far as the question of sentence is concerned, there is nothing on record to indicate as to which of the appellants caused fatal injuries upon the three deceased. Although the crime was committed in a ghastily manner without any provocation by deceased or P.W.1 Km. Geeta, in the absence of anything to indicate as to who actually committed murders it would not be just and fair to send all the four appellants to gallows. In the circumstances sentence to life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. The result is that both the Criminal Appeals Nos. 331 of 1995 and 566 of 1994 are allowed in part. Conviction of all the appellants as recorded by the trial court is maintained but the sentence awarded is reduced to the imprisonment for life. Reference No.3 of 1995 for confirmation of death sentence is rejected. All the appellants are in jail. They would serve out the sentence as awarded by this Court.;