•HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Benchi Coram: Hon'ble MrT.P.SHARMA & Hon'bleMr.R.LJHANWAR,JJ )!. APPELLANT (In Jail) RESPONDENT APPELLANTS (InJail) RESPONDENT APPELLANT Criminal Appeal No.485 of 2007 Asim Singh, S/o. Virendra Singh, aged about41 years, ResidentofMussepur, Khijarsaray, Distt.Gaya (Bihar), at present Makhanpur Road, P.S. Civil Line Gaya (Bihar). Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Officer, Police Chowki Kumhari, Thana Bhilai-3, Distt.Durg (C.G.) Crimjnal Appeal No.517 of 2007 1. Arun Singh @ Tanti, S/o Shri Ramjanam Singh, aged about 41 years, Resident of Kolhana, Police Station Bajirganj, Distt.Gaya (Bihar). (absconding and appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 19.1.2011) 2. -: Munna Singh @ Pahalwan, S/o. late • Shri Kedar Singh Rajput, aged about 41 years, Resident ofVillage Darihara, P.S. Dariyapur, Janta Bazar, Distt.Chhapara (Saran). 3. Manoj Kumar Singh @ Chotu, S/o. Shri Mahendra Singh Rajpur, aged about 36 years, Resident of 8 - Pynabar, P.S. Risiup, Distt.Aurangabad (Bihar). Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Officer, Police Chowki Kumhari, Thana Bhilai-3, Distt.Durg (C.G.) Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2007 Arunanjay Pandey @ Rastogy S/o Shri Mahesh Pandey aged about 35 years R/o Village Bashhi-Shambhutola, RESPONDENT Thana-Dariyapur, Jantabazar, Distt.Chhapra (Sarang) Bihar. Versus State of C.G. Through Station Incharge Police Chowki Kumhari, Thana Bhilai-3, Distt.Durg (C.G.) APPELLANT (In Jail) RESPONDENT sa- (InJail) RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No.329^of Upendra Singh Rajput @ Ramesh Singh, S/o Ambika Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o village Belwa, Police Station Keejarsarai, Distt.Gaya (Bihar) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- Station House Officer, Police Chowki Kumhari, P.S. Bhilai-3, Distt.Durg (C.G.) And Criminal ApReal No.173 of 2010 < Omprakash Singh @ O.P.Shukla S/o 5hri Rajendra Singh Rajpoot, aged about (not mention) R/o Manpur, Baksariya Tola, Police Station- Buniyadganj, District Gaya (Bihar) , • ' Versus. State pf Chhattisgarh through Police Statioh Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) (Criminal Appeals under.Section 374(2) of the Cocje of Criminal Procedure) Mr.Uttam Pandey, counsel for appellant Asim Singh in Cr.A.No.485/2007. Mr.B.P.Singh, counsel for appellants Munna Singh @ Pahalwan and Manoj Kumar Singh @ Chhotu inCr.A.No.517/2007. Mr.Shashank Thakur, counsel for appellant Arunanjay Pandey @ Rastogy in Cr.A.No.670/2007. Mr.Vivek Shrivastava, counsel fpr appellant Omprakash Singh @ O.P.ShuklainCrANo.173/2010. Mr.S.D.Yadav, Mr.C.G.Tiwari and Mr.B.P.Singh, counsel for appellant Upendra Singh Rajput @ Ramesh Singhin Cr.A.No.329/2010. Mr.D.K.Gwalre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in all criminal appeals. 'N. l^ h JUDGMENT (Deliveredon 18th February, 2011) y The judgment ofthe Court was delivered by T.P.Sharma, J.:- 1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 485/2007, 517/2007, 670/2007 and 329/2010 filed on behalf of appellants AsimSingh, Arun Singh @ Tanti, Munna Singh @ Pahalwan, Manoj Kumar Singh ©Chotu,Arunanjay Pandey @ Rastogy and Upendra Singh Rajput @ Ramesh Singh against the judgment of convictionand order of sentence dated 23.5.2007 passed by the 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.181/2002 and Criminal Appeal No.173/2010 filed on behalf of appellant Omprakash Singh @ O.P.Shukla against the judgment of eonviction and order of sehtence dated 30.10.2009 passed by the saine Court in same Sessioris Trial who was abscondihg during pendency of Sessions Trial No.181/2002 gihclsubsequently arrested and tried, are being disposed of by this Gommon judgment. Criminal AppeatNo.517/2007 also filed on behalf of appellarit Arun Singh @ Tanti who is absconding from jail custody has been dismissed vide orderdated 19.1,2011. ^. 2. Vide afbresaid twp judgments, in^ Sessions Trial No.181/2002, appellants Asim Singh, Aruri Singh @ Tanti, Munna Singh @ Pahalwan, Manoj Kumar/Singh @ Chotu, Arunanjay Pandey @ Rastogy and Upendra Singh Rajput @ RameshSingh and Omprakash Singh @ O.P.Shukla have been convicted under Sections 120-B, 364- A, 344, 346 and 395pfthe I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.l. for five years and ftne of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l; for one year, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l.for three years, R.l. for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.t. for three months, R.l. for one year and R.l. for seven years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment offine to further undergo R.l. for one year. ^ ^BS v 3. ConvictiQn is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 4. As per case of the prosecution, on 29.3.2001 Jaichand Baid (PW-14), owner of Vardhaman Service Station i.e., petrol pump situate at Kumhari, District Durg left his petrol pump at about 7.30 p.m. for his residence situate at Raipur by matiz car, he was followed by appellants Upendra Singh Rajput, Asim Singh, Umesh Singh and Pawan Singh by red colour maruti car near Bhathagaon with two other accused, 'his vehicle was intercepted by the appellants by maruti car, appellants came out from maruti car and forcefully dragged Jaichand Baid (PW- 14) from his Matiz car and took and boarded him in maruti car. Out of the aforesaid appellants, one appellant was also driving matiz car owned by Jaichand Baid (PW-14). In a way they filled petrol in the vehicle and afterjourney of24 hours-they took Jaichand Baid (PW-14) in unknown place which was finally known as Kodrama, On second day he was again shifted to another house and was secretly kept during journey at unknbwn house, he was continuously threatened by the appellants during the aforesaid confinement, appellants regularly demanded ransom from relatives of Jaichand Baid (PW-14). With a view to impress relatives:of Jaichand Baid (PW-14) they compelled to writesomeletter whjchthey fax to his brotherVimal Chand Baid and his son Siddharth Baid. After negotiation between relatives of Jaichand Baid (PW-14) and appellants, finally appellants agreed for Rs.25,00,0007- ransom which as, per their direction relatives of Jaichand Baid thrown between Calcutta to Allahabad in running train, thereafter, Jaichand Baid (PW-14) was released in Mugalsarai. Finally he was brought by his relatives and friends to Jabalpur and from Jabalpur to his house Raipur. When Jaichand Baid (PW-14) did nbt reach his house, then on 30.3.2001 missing report vide Ex.P/10A was lodged at Police Chowki Kumhari, Police Station Bhilai. Fir^lly on the basis of demand of ransom by the appellants to relatives of kidnap Jaichand Baid, he narrated detailed incidentto the police. During the course of investigation on 28.7.2001 appellant Upendra Singh was arrested at Cuttak (Orissa) in connection with kidnapping of another <—- ^€/ ^ssf' 61 person Pranav Agrawal, businessman of Orissa and demand of ransom, he was deeply interrogated, during the course of interrogation on 1.8.2001, appellant Upendra Singh made inculpatory disclosure statement relating to co-accused Asim Singh, Umesh Singh, Pawan Singh and other persons Jai Singh and Bahadur @ J.K., he made disclosure statement of fact of Sandeep Hotel, Raipur, Triveni Hotel, Raipur, maruti car, Jaimata di petrol pump, diamond ring, currency notes of Rs.1,50,000/-, mobile sets and matiz car vide Ex.P/33. After notice Exs.P/36 and P/37, house ofVasudev Singh and Virendra Singh was searched but no mobile was found. He disclosed the fact of Triveni Hotel, panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/32, he also disclosed the fact of Sandeep Hotel, panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/31, he also disclosed the fact of Jaimatadi Service Station i.e., petrol pump, panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/30, he also disctosed the place near Bhathagaon.panchnama was also prepared vide Ex.P/29. Entry register of Sandeep Hotel was seized vide Ex.P/28 at the instance of appellant Upendra Singh. He was arrested vide Ex.P/27. Dyring the course of such investigation.appellant Upendra Singh was taken in police remand vide Ex.P/44. Appellant Asim Singh was arrested vide Ex.P/41. Police remand of appellant Asim Singh was prayed and granted vide Ex.P/45. Judicial rfemand was prayed vide Ex.P/42. Detailed intimation relating to arrestof appellant Upendra Singh was recorded vide Ex.P/46. Other intimation was recorded by Lodhi Colony Police, New Delhi vide Exs.P/48 to P/51 and presence of appellant Upendra Singh was madevide Ex.P/52. White colour maruti car number BR 23A-6793 was seized from Dinesh Prasad from Harajibagh vide Ex.P/65 with receipt vide Ex.P/66 and duplicate registration book and insurance book vide Exs.P/67, P/68 and P/69. Account book of Mrs.Bindu Kumari in which Rs. 20,067/- and Rs.3,20,468/- deposit has been shown, his slips Exs.P/71 and P/72 were seized vide Ex.P/70. Deposit slip of some of Rs.3,00,000/- was seized vide Ex.P/73. Bank Manager of Bahk of India, Manaitand, Dhanbad Branch was requested for such information vide Exs.P/74 to P/76. Copy of account was supplied vide Exs.P/77, P/78, P/79, P/80, P/81 and P/82. District Transport Authority, Giridih, Jharkhand was requested for information J S '^' -.s^' of maruti car number BR 23A/6793 vide Ex.P/84. Repair order given by Manoj Singh ofvehicle No.J.A.11-A/5218. Documents Exs.P/86 and P/87 were seized vide Ex.P/85. Information relating to matiz car was requested to District Transport Authority, Giridih vide Ex.P/88 and the authority intimated the same vide Exs.P/89 and P/90. Information relating to bank account of appellant Upendra Singh and his wife Deventi Devi was demanded vide Ex.P/91. Same was provided vide Exs.P/94 and P/95 which was seized vide Ex.P/92. During the course of investigation appellant Manoj Kumar Singh @ Chotu also made disclosure statement of matiz car vide Ex.P/100 and appe[!ant Arunanjay Pandey also made disclosure statement of matiz car vide Ex.P/101. House of appellant Upendra Singh was searched vide Ex.P/2 and pass book was recovered from his house. House of Pano Devi was also searched and mobile, pass book and diary were seized vide Ex.P/3. Paper relating to matiz car was seized from Vimal Chand Baid vide Ex.P/4. Letter written byJaichand Baid to his brotherVimal Chand Baid Articles B, E, D, F and other papers i.e.,Articles G and K were seized vide Ex.P/5. Video cassette was seized vide Ex.P/6 from Tilak Baid. One blaek colourbag was seized vide Ex.P/7. Conversation of Jaichand Baid with appellants was recorded in tape recorder, panchnama of aforesaid tape was prepared vide Ex.P/S.Onthe tjasis of detailed statement bf kidnapped person Jaichand Baid, police took Jaichand Baid to the place where he was confined, he identified the aforesaid place. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/16. At the time of his release he was under fear and he has not narrated the detailed facts. His statementwas also recorded subsequently. Identification parade was conducted and in test identification parade Jaichand Baid (PW-14) identified appellants Upendra Singh and Asim Singh vide Ex.P/9. He has also identified Upendra Singh vide Ex.P/13. Vids Ex.P/18 Jaichand Baid (PW-14) identified Umesh Singh @ Rampujan. Accused Ashok Kumar, Arun Singh, Munna Singh, Arunanjay Pandey and Manoj Kumar Singh were also subjected for identification and kidnap Jaichand Baid (PW-14) was identified them vide Ex. P/19. Damage bag was identified vide Ex.P/20. ^ ^ ? 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 973 (in short 'Code') and after detailed investigation, investigating agency has filed charge sheetand three times additional charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Durg, from where learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as twenty four witnesses. During the course of trial, accused Om Prakash absconded and trialwas bifurcated and decided against rest appellants. After his arrest he was again tried and was convicted & sentenced vide judgment dated 30.10.2009. Accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and claimed innocence and false implication in the crime in question. They have also examined defence witnesses. 7. After providing anopportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 8. We have heard Mr.Uttam Pandey, counsel for appellant Asim Singh in Cr.A.No.485/2007, Mr.B.P.Singh, counsel for appellants Munna Singh @ Pahalwan and Manoj KumarSingh @ Chhotu in Cr.A.No.517/2007, Mr.Shashank Thakur, counsel for appellant Arunanjay Pandey @ Rastogy in Cr.A.No.670/2007, Mr.Vivek Shrivastava, counsel for appellant Omprakash Singh @ O.P.Shukla in Cr.A.No.173/2010, Mr.S.D.Yadav, Mr.C.G.Tiwari and Mr.B.P.Singh, counsel for appellant Upendra Singh Rajput @ Ramesh Singh in Cr.A.No.329/2010 and Mr.D.K-Gwalre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in all criminal appeals, perused both the judgments impugned and record of the trial Court; 9. Mr.Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for appellant Asim Singh in Criminal Appeal No.485/2007 vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence ofjaichand Baid (PW-14) and identification of ^ IEEE-.'. '•"— the appellants in identification parade conducted by the prosecution agency. As per paras 7, 26, 165 and 169 of Jaichand Baid (PW-14), present appellant Asim was not present at the time of kidnapping or in subsequent date although Jaichand Baid was kidnapped on 29.3.2001 and he was released on 12.5.2001 after about one month and fifteen days byt during the aforesaid period of his confinement he has not seen appellant Asim Singh. As per para 26 of his evidence, on one occasion appellant Asim Singh came to flat where he was confined and on 12.5.2001 at the time of his release present appellant Asim Sir^gh gave him Rs.5000/-, one jeans T-shirt. Learned counsel further argued that these evidences itself are not sufficient to connect theappeilant in the crime in question that the present appellant has kidnapped and demanded ransom and on the basis of memorandum of UpendraSingh he has been falsely implicated. His house was searched vide Ex.P/35 but nothing has been seized from his house. As per para 54 of evidence of Sub-lnspector Mohd. Ismail Khan, in case of parking the vehicle in front of hotel the person/servant of hotel used to record the number of vehicle parked ih front of his hotel but as such number has not been recorded by Sandeep Hotel and Triveni Hotel, even investigating agency has not tried for identification of the appellants by employeesof the afbresaid hotel. Learned counsel also argued^at statement under Section 161 of the Code of Jaichand Baid (PW-14) has been recorded vide Ex.D/5 in which he has not stated the fact that present appellant gave him Rs.5000/- and jeans T-shirt, he has also not mentioned the description of such person who gave such amount in his statements Exs.D/5 and D/6, but without any basis he has identified the present appellant vide identification memo Ex.P/9 which does not inspire confidence and trustworthy.As per paras 130 and 138 of evidence of Jaichand Baid (PW-14) he was in possession of foyr photographs of accused persons and he has identified the persons on the basis of photographs, although he has specifically deposed that he was within the control of the appellants for forty four days, therefore, he was in a position to identify the persons who have confined him and committed the offence against him. In para 38 he has not deposed anything that he has seen photograph of the present appellant Asim. ^l^l."11 9, .jl Learned counsel contended that as per para 6 of evidence of Deendayal Yadav (PW-6), worker of Jaimatadi petrol pump, he has not identified the present appellant. Learned counsel further contended that as per case of the prosecution and claim of the complainant, offence took place at Bhathagaon within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court situate at Raipur, therefore, the court situate at Durg is not competent to try the offence not committed in its territorial jurisdiction. 10. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Ravi alias Ravichandran v. State represented by Inspector of Police in which the Supreme Court has held that purpose of test identification is to test the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability of identifying persons who were unknown to him.'The Supreme Court has further held that irregularity in test identification and testimonies of witnesses relating to identify not found trustworthy, then accused is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Subash and Shiv Shankar v. State of U.P. in which the Supreme Court has held that witnesses not giving any description of accused either in FIR or in their statements during investigation, conviction cannot be based solely on the basis of such identification and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Baboo v. State of M.P. in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that witnesses ciaim^d to have given description of miscreants to police either in FIR or in case diary statements in absence ofany source of light available near the place of incident, it was difficult for witnesses to identify assailants and unexplained delay in holding test identification parade, then accused is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of VishwanathGupta v. State of Uttaranchal in which the Supreme Court has held that in accordance with Sections 18T(2), 178 and 179 & 2(j)of the Code offence of kidnapping is triable within the jurisdictionof the Court situate from where the complainant was kidnapped, from where ransom was demanded and from where he was killed. '(2007) 15SCC372 ;AIR 1987 SC 1222 32006 (1) Crimes 178 "(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) o2 fc^.. . ^•••:-"\ ii ":^ J 10 11. Mr.S.D.Yadav with Mr.C.G.Tiwari and Mr.B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for appellant Upendra Singh Rajput in Criminal Appeal No.329/2010 vehemently argued that as per para 174of evidence of Jaichand Baid (PW-14), he came to know about arrest of appellant Upendra Singh by paper news. He has deposed in paras 139 and 140 of his evidence that after arrest of Upendra police has shown the photograph of Upendra Singh befcre identification. In para 140 he has deposed that Jabalpur police has also recorded his statement but at that time he was under fear and he has given some statement at the instance of the appella?its. He has also deposed that at the time of kidnapping the person having lukodarma was present at the time of commission of offence. Learned counsel further argued that Jaichand Baid (PW-14) identified appeilant Upendra Singh Rajput vide Ex.P/13, but no any person having lukodarma was mixed for identification. Learned counsel also argued that conviction is substantially based on the factum of identification but the prosecution has not adduced evidence of steriing and substantive character to connect the appellant in crime in question. Evidence relating to identification is not worthy of credence. 12. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra with other connected maters^in which the Supreme Court has heldthat at the time of identification no person with specific character i.e., beard and long hair was included in test identification in absence of such person at the time of identification the man of specific character who was easily identifiable, therefore, evidence of such identification is of no use to connect the appellant in the crime in question. 13. Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for appellgnt Arunanjay Pandey ©Rastogyin Criminal Appeal No.670/2007 vehemently argued that as per evidence of Jaichand Baid (PW-14) present appellant used to provide food to him and also threat to him. Learned counsel further argued that conviction is substantially based on the factum of identification byt the prosecution has not adduced evidence of sterling 'AIR 2000 SC 160 11 and substantive character to connect the appellant in crime in question. Evidence relating to identification is not worthy of credence. 14. Mr.B.P.Singh, learned counsel for appellants IVIunna Singh @ Pahalwan and Manoj Kumar Singh @ Chhotu in Criminal Appeal No.517/2007 vehemently argued that before identification Jaichand Baid (PW-14) has seen the photograph of Munna Singh, therefore, conduction of identification parade was of no use. In his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code Jaichand Baid (PW-14) has not described the identity of the aforesaid appeltants and the act attributed to them. His evidence relating to identification and commission of offence are wholly unreliable and same cannot be based for conviction of the appellants. 15. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Namdeo Dautata Dhayagude and othersV.State of Maharashtra in which the Supreme Court has held thatwhere the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters ofdetail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely bn his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of State of U.P. v. Punni & Ors. in which the Supreme Court has held that non- examination of material witness is fatal to the prosecution. Showing the photographs of accused to such witness before test identification parade losses its value. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and another & other connected matter in which the Supreme Court has held that identification of more thanone accused in same parade cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Ahmed Bin Salam v. State of Andhra Pradesh9 in which theSupreme Court has held that atthe time of test identification parade, question by police relating to act committed by the accused make the identification parade inadmissible. Learned 'AIR1977SC381 72008 AIR SCW 376 °(2007) 3 SCC 755 9AIR 1999 SC 1617 counsel further placed reliance in the matter of D. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik & Ors. in which the Supreme Court has held that description given by the witnesses confirmed by investigating officer by showing photographs of the suspect makes the identificatioh, inadmissible. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh in which the Supreme Court has held that test identification is not substantive evidence, such tests are meant for purpose of helping investigating agency with an assurance that their progress wi'th investigation into offence is proceeding on right lines. Test identification after a gap of over a month from date of arrest and after 3 months from date of incident, no reliance can be placed on such delayed test identification parade. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of State of IVIaharashtra v. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan and others in which the Supreme Court has held that contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments in evidence of substantial nature without any explanation is not safe to rely. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar v. State of Maharashtra and another in which the Supreme Court has held that territorial jurisdiction of the Court regarding criminal offence can be decided on the basis of place of occurrence of the incident and not on the basis of where complaint was filed. Learned counsel relied upon the matter of Staterepresented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait alias Krishnakumar in which the Supreme Court has held that photographs published in newspaper before identification, conduction of identification parade losses importance of such identification. 16. Mr.Vivek Sharivastava, learned counsel for appellant Omprakash Singh @ O.P.Shukla in Cr.A.No. 173/2010 vehemently argued that conviction is substantially based on the factum of identification but the prosecution has not adduced evidence of sterling and substantive character to 10 12 14 "2004(4) Crimes 241 (SC) 1AIR 2010 SC 762 '(2010)1 SCC(Cri)1356 '(2009)3SCC(Cri)1330 '(2009)3SCC(Cri)1037 13 y^1''^ ^^^'' M connect the appellant in crime in question. Evidence relating to identification is not worthy of credence. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued and attacked upon the story of prosecution on the ground of improper and illegal identification, absence of description in statement of Jaichand Baid (PW-14) recorded under Section 161 of the Code of the appellants, absence of fact relating to the act attributed to the aforesaid appellants in Exs.D/5 and D/6, statements of Jaichand Baid (PW-14), showing of photographs before identification and opportunity to see the accused and their photographs before such identification. They have submitted that conviction is solely based and rested on the solitary evidence of Jaichand Baid (PW-14) whose evidence does not inspire confidence and trustworthy and is not sufficient for conviction of the appellants for heinous offence. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. In the present