1. The accused in S.C.No.505 of 2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri are the appellants in the appeals. Among them, the appellant in Crl.A.No.1307 of 2018 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.870 of 2019 is the second accused. They stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, and 201 and 404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The first accused is a lorry driver. The second accused is a friend of the first accused. The case relates to the death of one Siji Thomas which allegedly took place on 07.09.2015. Siji Thomas who was known to the first accused, was also a lorry driver employed in an establishment called 'M/s. Transglobal Cargo Movers'. Siji Thomas was driving a lorry bearing No.KL 54C 8908 as entrusted to him by his employer The said lorry was though owned by the establishment, its registration was in the name of one Saidalavi. On 07.09.2015, as per the instructions of his employer, Siji Thomas transported a load of Horlicks cargo from Kalamassery to the premises of one M/s. V.K.Distributors at Kondotty. Though Siji Thomas informed his employer at about 4 p.m. after unloading the cargo that he is returning to Thrikkakara, Siji Thomas could not be contacted by anyone thereafter.

3. One Roy, the husband of the sister of Siji Thomas lodged a complaint before Malappuram Police on 11.09.2015 alleging that Siji Thomas is missing from 07.09.2015. A case was registered on the said complaint on 11.09.2015 for man missing. The investigation conducted in the said case thereupon revealed that Siji Thomas was murdered by the accused to take possession of the lorry held by him. A final report was consequently filed in the case disclosing commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 404 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. The accusation against the accused in the final report is that after unloading the cargo at Kondotty, Siji Thomas proceeded to Kozhikode on the offer made by the first accused that he would provide a cargo to Siji Thomas for transportation; that on Siji Thomas reaching Kozhikode by about 1 p.m. on the same day, with the intention of taking possession of the lorry held by him, the accused got into the cabin of the lorry and while they were proceeding towards Thamarassery, at the place called 'Thechi', the accused, after giving Siji Thomas liquor mixed with a sedative substance, tied a towel around his neck, tightened and thereby caused his death by strangulation. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused thereafter proceeded towards Wayanad and dropped the dead body into an abyss after removing the clothes at the place called 'Thakarappady'. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused thereafter changed the registration number of the lorry held by the deceased as exhibited in its number plates as KL-5C-908 by covering the digits 4 and 8 using yellow paint, tore off from the vehicle its plastic name sticker 'TCM' and parked the vehicle at a place called 'Kakkaadampoyil' for dismantling the same.

5. On the accused being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against them to which they pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 42 witnesses as PWs 1 to 42 and proved through them 65 documents as Exts.P1 to P65 series. MOs 1 to 9 series are the material objects in the case. When the incriminating evidence were put to the accused in terms of the provisions contained in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), the stand taken by the first accused was that there were property disputes between Roy, the brother-in-law of the deceased and the deceased, and Roy had advised the first accused not to have any connection with the deceased. According to first accused, he was implicated falsely in the case as an accused by Roy, as the first accused maintained friendship with the deceased against his advice. The stand taken by the second accused, however, was that he has nothing to do with the case. The Court of Session, after complying with the procedure prescribed and after affording the accused an opportunity of hearing, held that the accused are guilty of the offences alleged against them and convicted them. The sentence imposed on the accused consequent on their conviction includes imprisonment for life also. The accused are aggrieved by the said decision of the Court of Session.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the first and the second accused as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Even though there is no dispute in this case on the question whether the death of Siji Thomas was a homicide, before proceeding further in the matter, it is necessary to state that in the light of the unchallenged testimony of PW23, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, that the death was due to ligature strangulation, the finding rendered by the Court of session that the death was a homicide, is in order.

9. Ext.P14 is the inquest report. In entry 9 of Ext.P14 inquest report dealing with the particulars of the relative of the deceased who recognised the body, it is mentioned that it is PW1, who recognised the body of the deceased. One of the arguments seriously pressed into service by the learned counsel for the first accused is that the identity of the dead body recovered in the case has not been established as that of the deceased. As such, according to the learned counsel, the conviction of the accused is liable to be set aside on that sole ground. PW1 testified that he was present when the first accused showed the body to the police and PW1 recognised the same based on the features of the deceased on the left side of the face, forehead, and hairs. The evidence tendered by PW1 in this regard reads thus:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

Even though the counsel for the first accused did not challenge the said evidence of PW1 in cross-examination, the argument raised in the appeal is that the dead body was not in a recognisable state at all and that since only the features on the left side of the face, forehead, and hairs of the dead body could be noticed then, the First Information Statement was corrected after detecting the body so as to include the said features of the body also therein, in order to make it seem that the dead body recovered was that of Siji Thomas. In order to reinforce the said argument, the learned counsel for the first accused has also brought to our notice that even though the case was registered on 11.09.2015, the First Information Report was submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate only after the recovery of the body. As such, according to the learned counsel, no sanctity could be attributed to the recognition of the dead body by PW1. The learned counsel for the first accused has also brought to our notice the relevant report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which certifies that the teeth and blood sample of the deceased were not suitable for DNA profiling and as such, the same could not be compared with the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the mother of the deceased. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel is therefore that it has to be presumed that the dead body recovered was not identified by PW1 satisfactorily, for if the dead body was recognised by PW1, it was unnecessary for the investigating officer to take steps to establish the identity of the dead body by DNA typing.

10. Although it is not a rule that the corpus delicti has to be recovered in all cases, inasmuch as it is alleged by the prosecution that the dead body was recovered, it is obligatory for the prosecution to prove its identity. The question is whether satisfactory evidence has been let in by the prosecution to prove the same. At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no substance in the argument that the First Information Statement was tampered with. True, a perusal of Ext.P1 First Information Statement would indicate that two sentences have been subsequently inserted therein above the signature of the first informant. The said insertion reads thus:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

As noted, the evidence given by PW1 was that he recognised the dead body based on the features on the left side of the face, forehead, and hairs. If as a matter of fact, the insertion aforesaid in the First Information Report is a subsequent one, there was no necessity at all to make such an insertion which recites that the deceased was a fair and lean man, that he was aged about 45 years and that he belongs to Velloor. In other words, as found by the Court of Session, the insertion can only be treated as one made at the time of preparation of the document itself, after noticing that the features of the person concerned was omitted to be included in the First Information Statement initially. In addition to PW1, PW13, the witness to the inquest report also deposed that Siji Thomas is a person known to him and that he was present when the inquest of his dead body was held by the police. The said evidence let in by PW13 has also not been challenged by the counsel for the first accused in cross-examination. True, there was an attempt on the part of the investigating officer to establish the identity of the deceased by conducting DNA Typing. But, merely for the reason that there was such an attempt, it cannot be said that the dead body was not recognised. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, we are inclined to hold that the identity of the dead body has been established in the case and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused against the same is only to be rejected.

11. Let us now deal with the evidence let in by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. There are no eye witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the accused. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence for the said purpose. The circumstances on which reliance is placed to establish the guilt of the accused are mainly facts discovered based on the information furnished by the accused. Of course, there is other evidence as well. Let us begin with facts discovered based on the information furnished by the accused.

12. PW40 is the police officer who conducted the initial investigation in the case. PW40 deposed that during interrogation after the arrest, the first accused informed him that he knows the place where the dead body was thrown as also where the lorry was parked and that when the first accused was taken to a place called 'Karimbu' as directed by him on the basis of the said information, the first accused showed the subject vehicle which was parked in the property of one Sojan George, after changing its registration number as KL-5C 908. Ext.P54 is the relevant portion of the information which led to the discovery of the place where the lorry was kept. Ext.P19 is the observation mahazar prepared by PW40 on locating the lorry on 14.09.2015 and Ext.P43 is the mahazar prepared by PW40 while effecting seizure of the lorry on 15.09.2015. The evidence tendered by PW40 in this regard has not been discredited in his cross-examination by the counsel for the first accused. There was not even a suggestion in the said cross-examination to PW40 that the lorry stated to have been seized based on the information furnished by the first accused, was not the lorry held by the deceased. The evidence tendered by PW40 in this regard was corroborated by Sojan George, the person in whose property the lorry was parked and who was examined in the proceedings as PW33. PW33 deposed that on 11.09.2015, the first accused who is none other than the brother-in-law of his neighbour Solan, kept a lorry in his compound and that the police party came to his property with the first accused on 14.09.2015. Even though PW33 could not depose the exact registration number of the vehicle, it was stated by him that the last digits of the registration number were '908'. PW33 also deposed that on 15.09.2015, the police party seized the lorry as per Ext.P43 mahazar and that he is a witness to the said mahazar. The evidence tendered by PW40 was further corroborated by the evidence tendered by PW34, a person from the same locality of PW33. PW34 deposed that he knows the first accused as the brother-in-law of his friend Solan and that on 12.09.2015, the first accused came to the house of PW34 and borrowed a sum of Rs.500/- in the pretext of being unwell and that he needs money for purchasing medicine, after keeping the key of the lorry which he had parked at the relevant time in the property of PW33. The feeble argument raised by the learned counsel for the first accused as regards the evidence tendered by PW40 concerning the recovery of the lorry, is that there is no evidence to show that the recovered lorry is one that was held by the deceased. The basis of the said argument is that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle seized based on the information furnished by the first accused, are not shown in the mahazars relating to the said vehicle prepared in connection with the crime. On a perusal by us, it is seen that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle discovered based on the information furnished by the first accused is not shown in any of the mahazars. But merely for the reason that the engine number and the chassis number of the vehicle are not shown in the documents, it cannot be said that the vehicle recovered and seized is not the vehicle that was held by the deceased. PW10, the employer of the deceased who provided the vehicle to the deceased, deposed that since the registration of the lorry was in the name of PW11, the lorry was released to PW11 on a kaicheet. PW11 corroborated the evidence tendered by PW10 in this regard by deposing that he received the lorry on Ext.P12 kaicheet. Neither PW10 nor PW11 was cross-examined by the counsel for the first accused as to the identity of the lorry released as per Ext.P12 kaicheet. In other words, the evidence tendered by PWs 10 and 11 proves beyond doubt that the lorry seized based on the information furnished by the first accused, was the lorry held by the deceased. If that be so, the evidence tendered by PW40 in this regard that the first accused knew the place where the lorry held by the deceased was parked, is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even if the said evidence does not fall within the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the fact that the place where the lorry held by the deceased was kept was shown to the police by the first accused, is certainly admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

13. PW40 also deposed that the body of the deceased was in an abyss between the 8th and 9th hairpin turns on the side of Kozhikode - Thamarassery ghat road based on the information furnished by the first accused. Ext.P54 contains the relevant portion of the information given by the first accused which led to the discovery of the place where the body of the deceased was thrown also. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first accused that the evidence tendered by PW40 in this regard is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the evidence tendered by PW1 in the case would indicate that the police knew the place where the body was thrown even before the accused had shown that place to them. It is seen that PW1 has deposed that at about 2 p.m. on 14.09.2015, he received a call from Kondotty Police Station informing him that they have information that Siji Thomas is no more and requiring him to come to a place called 'Thakarapady'. It was the evidence of PW1 that while he was waiting at the said place, the police party came there with the first accused and it was thereafter that the first accused had shown to the police a place in between 8th and 9th hairpin turns and that it was at that place, the body of the deceased was found. It is on the basis of the said evidence, it was argued by the learned counsel that the evidence tendered by the investigating officer in this regard is not admissible, inasmuch as no fact can be said to be discovered based on the information given by the accused. We do not find merit in this argument. From the evidence tendered by PW1 itself, it can be seen that it is in the presence of PW1 that the first accused has shown the place to the police where the body was thrown. In other words, it cannot be said that the police knew the place where the body was abandoned before the said place was shown to them by the first accused. Merely for the reason that the police required PW1 to come to a nearby place, it cannot be said that the police knew the place where the body was abandoned. Even if it is held that the information which led to the discovery of the place where the body of the deceased was abandoned, is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, according to us, the evidence tendered by PW40 that the place where the body of the deceased was thrown was shown to them by the first accused, is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

14. PW40 also deposed that on verification of the cabin of the lorry at the time of its seizure on 15.09.2015, Ext.P44 Aadhaar card of the second accused was found therein and the same was also seized as per Ext.P43 mahazar. No doubt, when PW40 was cross-examined by the counsel for the second accused, it was suggested to PW40 that Ext.P44 was not seized from the cabin of the lorry. Except the suggestion aforesaid, the second accused has not offered any explanation either in the form of any suggestion to PW40 or while being questioned under Section 313 of the Code as to how the investigating officer recovered his Aadhaar card from the lorry recovered based on the information furnished by the first accused.

15. PW42 is the police officer who continued the investigation in the case from 17.09.2015. PW42 deposed that when the first accused was interrogated by him after obtaining his custody, it was disclosed by the first accused that he can show the place where he abandoned a towel, a sticker, a paint tin and brush and when he was taken to Mukkam– Thekkumkutty-Maramchatty road as stated by him on 20.09.2015, he took out and handed over to PW42 from the bushes on the side of Mukkam–Thekkukutty-Maramchatty road Ext.P3 commission slip, Ext.P10 account book, Exts.P11 and P11(a) receipts and Ext.P11(b) copy of the driving licence of the deceased. The evidence tendered by PW42 in this regard has not been discredited by the accused in the crossexamination of PW42 in any manner whatsoever. PW10, the employer of the deceased confirmed in his evidence that Ext.P10 is the account book kept by the deceased in the lorry used by him; that the handwriting in Ext.P10 is that of the deceased; that Ext.P3 is the commission slip obtained by the deceased from Kozhikode; that Exts.P11 and P11(a) are the receipts kept by the deceased along with the copy of his driving licence, Ext.P11(b). Ext.P48 is the mahazar evidencing seizure of Ext.P3 commission slip, Ext.P10 account book, Exts.P11 and P11(a) receipts and Ext.P11(b) copy of the driving licence of the deceased. Ext.P48(a) is the information which led to the seizure of the above objects. It was also deposed by PW42 that the first accused also took out from the same place and handed over to him, MO7 towel. The evidence tendered by PW42 in this regard has also not been discredited by the accused. The specific case of the prosecution is that MO7 is the ligature used by the accused to strangulate the deceased and that if one is strangulated to death, bleeding occurs from the mouth, nostrils and ears. The fact that bleeding occurs from mouth, nostrils and ears, has been affirmed by PW23, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased also. Item 11 in Ext.P61 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is MO7 towel. It is reported in Ext.P61 that MO7 contains blood stains of human origin. MO7 towel was also seized as per Ext.P48 mahazar and Ext.P48(a) is also the information which led to the seizure of the said object. The feeble argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused as regards the presence of blood stains on MO7 towel is that blood stains were not noted on the same when it was seized in terms of Ext.P48 mahazar. Merely for the reason that blood stains were not noted on MO7 while effecting its seizure, it cannot be said that it did not contain blood stains, especially when the presence of blood stains were detected in the laboratory through microscopic examination.

16. PW42 also deposed that thereupon, the first accused took him to a place called Thottakkadu on the same day namely, 20.09.2015 and from the side of the road at that place, the first accused took out and handed over to him MO1 series pieces of a sticker and the same were seized as per Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. Ext.P4(a) is the information which led to the recovery of MO1 series pieces of sticker. PW5 is an attester to Ext.P4 seizure mahazar and he corroborated the evidence tendered by PW42 in this regard. PW10, the employer of the deceased deposed that MO1 series pieces of sticker are pieces of the plastic sticker showing the name of his establishment as affixed in the lorry held by the deceased.

7. It was also deposed by PW42 that on 21.09.2015, based on the information furnished by the first accused, he was taken to Vendekumpoyil-Cheenkannivaly Karimbu public road and from the side of the said road, the first accused took out and handed over to him MO2 series brushes and MO3 paint tin and the same were seized as per Ext.P8 mahazar. Ext.P8(a) is the information which led to the recovery of MO2 series paint brushes and MO3 paint tin. Similarly, it was deposed by PW42 that based on the information furnished by the first accused, the first accused was taken to his house and from there, he took out and handed over to PW42 Ext.P5 bill disclosing purchase of paint and brush from a shop named United Agencies at the place called Thalayadu and the same was seized by him as per Ext.P21 mahazar. Ext.P21(a) is the relevant portion of the information which led to the recovery of Ext.P5 bill. It was also deposed by PW42 that the first accused was taken thereafter on 21.09.2015 to the said shop and the proprietor of the shop identified the first accused as the person who purchased MO2 series paint brushes and MO3 paint tin as per Ext.P5 bill. PW6, the proprietor of United Agencies corroborated the evidence tendered by PW42 in this regard by deposing that the first accused was taken by the police to his shop and that PW6 identified MO2 series paint brushes and MO3 paint tin as articles sold by him to the first accused. PW6 also identified Ext.P5 as the bill raised by him for sale of MO2 series paint brushes and MO3 paint tin. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused as regards the evidence tendered by PW42 concerning the recovery of Ext.P5 bill is that though there was a search in the house of the first accused on 13.09.2015, Ext.P5 bill was not seized from there on that day. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as the seizure of the said document could not be effected on 13.09.2015, the recovery of Ext.P5 bill indicating purchase of paint and brush from the house of the first accused on 15.09.2015, is highly suspicious. This argument lacks merit for the simple reason that before the seizure of the lorry effected on 15.09.2015 in a condition in which its number plate was altered, there was absolutely no reason for the investigating officer to effect seizure of Ext.P5 bill, even if the said document had come to his notice during the search held on 13.09.2015.

18. PW36 is the fingerprint expert attached to Rural Fingerprint Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. PW36 deposed that he inspected the lorry held by the deceased on 15.09.2015 and lifted five chance fingerprints from the same and compared the same with the fingerprints of the second accused as contained in the daily arrest slip made available to PW36 and the chance fingerprint numbered 'K5' lifted by him from the lorry, matched with the specimen of the left thumb impression of the second accused marked 'S' as contained in the daily arrest slip. Ext.P46 is the opinion given by PW36 in this regard. Nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of PW36 to discredit the evidence tendered by him or Ext.P46 report filed by him.

19. Ext.P62 is the chemical analysis report. Ext.P62, according to us, is a document that falls within the scope of Section 293 of the Code and as such the same can be used as an evidence. Ext.P62 recites that ethyl alcohol was detected in items 1 to 3 referred to therein namely, “stomach and part of the intestine contents”, “part of liver and one kidney” and “blood stained fluid”. Even though Ext.P62 did not indicate the presence of any sedative in items 1 to 3 referred to therein, the same establishes the case of the prosecution that the deceased had consumed liquor prior to his death.

20. PW10, the employer of the deceased is one of the important witnesses in the case. As already noticed, it is PW10 who corroborated most of the evidence given by the prosecution as to the discovery of the relevant facts based on the information furnished by the accused. In addition, PW10 also deposed that he saw the deceased last on 07.09.2015 and it was on that day, he transported a load of Horlicks to Kondotty in the subject lorry. PW10 deposed that he is using a mobile connection bearing number 9847102883. PW10 also deposed that he provided the mobile connection bearing number 9544660002 in the name of his establishment M/s.Transglobal Cargo Movers, to the deceased. PW10 also deposed that he knows the first accused and his mobile number is one ending with digits 664. PW10 deposed that the deceased had called him by about 4 p.m. on 07.09.2015 from the phone provided to him, after unloading the cargo which he transported on that day at Kondotty. PW10 also deposed that the deceased informed him that he got a load from Kozhikkode to be transported to Thrikkakkara. PW10 further deposed that when he contacted the deceased many times by about 9 p.m. on that day to ascertain whether he received the load, his mobile was switched off. PW10 further deposed that he contacted several persons thereafter to ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased, including the first accused, as PW10 knows the first accused as a friend of the deceased as also as a lorry driver. As already indicated, PW10 also deposed that the mobile number of the first accused is one ending with digits 664. PW10 deposed that when the deceased was found missing, he contacted many people including the first accused, to ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased and on enquiry, the stand taken by the first accused was that he has no contact with the deceased for about a week. Be that as it may, from the evidence tendered by PW10, it can certainly be inferred that after unloading the cargo at Kondotty, the deceased had proceeded to Kozhikkode.

21. PW32 is the Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited. PW32 deposed that 9847102883 and 9544660002 are numbers allotted to M/s.Transglobal Cargo Movers and 7025872664 is one allotted to one Deenu Scaria. Deenu Scaria was examined as PW24. PW24 deposed that she is the wife of the first accused and that she was not living with him as she has instituted proceedings against the first accused seeking divorce from him. PW24 deposed that the mobile number 7025872664 is one obtained on the strength of the identity card left by her in the house of the first accused. From the evidence tendered by PW10, PW24 and PW32, it could certainly be inferred that the mobile connection bearing number 7025872664 is one that was used by the first accused. PW32 made available the call details of mobile numbers 9544660002, 9847102883 and 7025872664 during the relevant period. PW31 is the nodal officer of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. PW31 deposed that mobile connection bearing number 8086546308 is one allotted to the second accused. PW31 has also made available the call details of the mobile number 8086546308 for the relevant period. The call details made available by PW31 and PW32 reveal that there were frequent calls and short service messages (SMS) between the first accused and the second accused from 05.09.2015 to 11.09.2015 which includes six calls made on 10.09.2015 and eight calls made on 11.09.2015. Similarly, the call details reveal that there were calls between the first accused and the deceased on 07.09.2015. Likewise, the call details reveal that there were calls between PW10, the employer of the deceased and the deceased, and between PW10 and the first accused. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused as regards the evidence let in by the prosecution that there were frequent calls between the aforesaid four persons, is that tower locations of the mobile phones have not been seized and produced in evidence. According to the learned counsel, accused 1 and 2 as also the first accused and the deceased were close associates and merely for the reason that there was communication between them over telephone during the relevant period, it cannot be said that they were involved in the crime. It was pointedly argued by the learned counsel for the first accused that in a case of this nature, it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to produce the tower location to ascertain whether the accused and the deceased were together at any point of time anywhere. No doubt, the prosecution could have certainly made available the tower locations of the mobile phones of the accused, the deceased and PW10 and the same would have certainly given a better picture of the relevant facts. But, merely for the reason that the prosecution has not produced the tower locations, according to us, it cannot be argued that the conversations between the accused as revealed from the call details, between the first accused and the deceased, between PW10 and the deceased as also between PW10 and the first accused during the relevant period are of no relevance at all. The following are the relevant conversations as revealed from the call details furnished in the case:

1) There were two conversations between PW10 and the deceased on 07.09.2015, one at 16:08:36 hours and another at 16:10:51 hours.

2) There were 13 conversations between the deceased and the first accused on 07.09.2015 starting from 9:36:26 hours to 14:29:43 hours.

3) There was a message from the mobile of PW10 to the mobile of the first accused at 13:22:36 hours on 07.09.2015; there was a call by PW10 to the first accused on the said day at 13:22:36 hours; there was a message from the mobile of PW10 to the mobile of the first accused at 20:50:58 hours on 08.06.2015; there were 8 conversations between PW10 and the first accused on 10.09.2015 and that there were two conversations between PW10 and the first accused on 11.09.2015.

4) There were conversations between the first and the second accused from 05:59:42 hours on 05.09.2015 upto 12:59:48 hours on 07.09.2015 and there were conversations between them on several occasions on the subsequent days also upto 11.09.2015.

The call records, the particulars of which are stated above, corroborate the evidence tendered by PW10 that he had contacted the deceased at about 4 p.m. on 07.09.2015. The call records also corroborate the version of PW10 that he contacted the first accused also when the deceased was found missing. Inasmuch as the first accused had contacted the deceased 13 times on 07.09.2015 right from the morning, there cannot be any doubt to the fact that the first accused had lied to PW10 that he is unaware of the whereabouts of the deceased. It is not clear from the call records as to when PW10 had enquired with the first accused as to the whereabouts of the deceased, as PW10 contacted the first accused from 07.09.2015 to 11.09.2015 on several occasions. Inasmuch as it is established that the first accused had contact with the deceased on 07.09.2015, there is no explanation from the first accused as to the reason why he did not disclose the said fact to PW10. Similarly, the call records indicate that the last call between the first accused and the deceased was at about 2.30 p.m. on 07.09.2015. Similarly, the call records indicate that there were no calls between the first and second accused also on 07.09.2015 after 2.30 p.m. Only the accused could explain as to the reason why there was no contact between them over telephone after 2.30 p.m. on 07.09.2015 and only the first accused could explain as to the reason why there was no contact between him and the deceased after the said time on that day, especially when they had conversed 13 times on that day till that point of time. In the absence of any explanation from the accused, it can be inferred that all of them namely, the accused and the deceased were together from 2.30 p.m. onwards on 07.09.2015.

22. PW30 is a friend of the second accused. PW30 deposed that on 05.09.2015, the second accused contacted him over telephone at about 10 p.m. and ascertained from him the possibility of selling a vehicle after dismantling the same. The evidence tendered PW30 establishes the fact that the second accused was exploring the possibility of selling a vehicle, after dismantling the same.

23. Based on the evidence discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the following circumstances have been established in the case:

1. That the second accused was exploring the possibility of selling a vehicle after dismantling the same.

2. That after unloading the cargo carried by the deceased at Kondotty, he proceeded to Kozhikkode.

3. That there was communication between the first and second accused from 05.09.2015 onwards and between the deceased and the first accused on several occasions on 07.09.2015.

4. That there is no explanation from the first accused as to why he did not disclose the fact that he had contact with the deceased on 07.09.2015, when PW10 enquired with him about the whereabouts of the deceased.

5. That although there were frequent calls between the deceased and the first accused on one hand and the first accused and the second accused on the other hand on 07.09.2015 till about 2.30 p.m., there were no calls either between the deceased and the first accused or between the first accused and the second accused after 2.30 p.m. The accused have not offered any explanation as to the reason why there was no communication between them or with the deceased after 2.30 p.m. on 07.09.2015.

6. That the lorry held by the deceased was found and seized based on the information furnished by the first accused. In other words, it was established that the first accused knew the place where the lorry held by the deceased at the time when the deceased was found missing, was parked.

7. That no explanation is offered by the first accused as to how he could show the place where the lorry held by the deceased was parked either in the form of any suggestion put to the investigating officer during his crossexamination or during his examination under Section 313 of the Code.

8. That the Aadhaar card of the second accused was found in the lorry held by the deceased which was found out based on the information furnished by the first accused. There is no explanation from the second accused as to how his Aadhaar card happened to be in the lorry held by the deceased.

9. That the body of the deceased was recovered based on the information furnished by the first accused. There is no explanation from the first accused as to how he knew the place where the body of the deceased was kept.

10. That the cause of the death of the deceased was due to ligature strangulation, and bleeding from the mouth, nostrils and ears is one of the symptoms of such death.

11. That the deceased had consumed liquor prior to his death.

12. That MO7 towel recovered based on the information furnished by the first accused contained blood stains of human origin. There is no explanation from the first accused as to what is the source of blood of human origin in MO7 towel.

13. That Ext.P3 commission slip, Ext.P10 account book, Ext.P11 series receipts and Ext.P11(b) copy of the driving licence of the deceased kept in the cabin of the lorry held by the deceased were recovered based on information furnished by the first accused. There is no explanation from the first accused as to how he knew the place where the said articles were concealed.

14. That MO1 series pieces of the plastic sticker of the name sticker of the lorry held by the deceased were recovered based on the information furnished by the first accused. There is no explanation from the first accused as to how he knew the place where the said articles were hidden.

15. That the first accused purchased on 10.09.2015 a tin of yellow paint and two paint brushes from the shop owned by PW6 and when the lorry held by the deceased was found on 14.09.2015, its registration number as exhibited in its number plates were seen changed from KL-54C 8908 to KL-5C 908, after covering the digits '4' and '8' using yellow paint.

16. That the left hand thumb impression of the second accused was found in the lorry held by the deceased.

It is trite that in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, there must be a chain of evidence so complete, so as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. The circumstances aforesaid, according to us, would satisfy the said principle, for the same would not only form a chain so complete without leaving any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, but also show that in all human probability, the death of the Siji Thomas was caused by the accused.

24. One of the main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused, other than the arguments dealt with in the preceding paragraphs, was that most of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are confessions, on the basis of which, various facts are stated to have been discovered and serious prejudice has been caused to the accused inasmuch as inadmissible portions of the confessions have been incorporated in the seizure mahazars. To bring home the said point, the learned counsel for the first accused has relied on the decision of this Court in Babu v. State of Kerala, 2023 (6) KLT 96. True, although it is seen that in some of the mahazars, admissible and inadmissible portions of the confessions, based on which the facts were discovered, were incorporated, we do not find any merit in this argument at all. It is not the written record of the disclosure statement of the accused which is admissible as primary evidence. What is admissible as primary evidence is the oral evidence given by the investigating officer about the admissible portion of the disclosure statement. The mahazars are only contemporaneous documents prepared by police officers for the purpose of record. That apart, if there are inadmissible portions in the evidence as regards disclosures made by the accused, the law on the point is not that the disclosures have to be completely eschewed from consideration. The law, on the other hand, is that the court has to separate and exclude the admissible portion from inadmissible portion [See Sanjay v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 3 SCC 190] [LQ/SC/2001/347] . It was also clarified by this Court in several judgments that even if the statement relied on by the prosecution contains an inculpatory portion, it is not the law that the statement should be rejected in its entirety. The court can exclude the inculpatory portion and take into consideration the rest of the statement. Needless to say, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused in this regard is only to be rejected.

25. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused is that the motive alleged for the crime lost its significance since the vehicle was not dismantled till the arrest of the accused. The argument is that if the accused were the persons who caused the death of the victim, they would have dismantled and sold the vehicle then and there and would not have kept the vehicle as it is. We are not impressed by this argument at all. Merely for the reason that the subject vehicle taken away from the deceased was not dismantled within a few days, it cannot be said that the accused had no intention to dismantle the same.

26. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused was that MO7 towel though sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the presence of skin tissues were not traced from the said towel. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as skin tissues were not found in MO7 towel, it cannot be said that MO7 was a ligature used to strangulate the deceased. According to us, had this been a case where skin tissues were traced from MO7, it would have certainly added weight to the case of the prosecution, but merely for the reason that skin tissues were not found on MO7, it cannot be said that it was not the ligature used for strangulating the deceased.

27. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused is that the prosecution has not established its case that the accused administered to the deceased, liquor mixed with the the sedative substance 'qutipin' tablet as alleged in the final report. It was argued that neither PW23, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased nor PW42, the investigating officer deposed about the said part of the case of the prosecution. Even though Ext.P62 did not indicate the presence of any sedative substance in items 1 to 3 referred to therein, merely for the said reason, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected in toto.

28. The learned counsel for the second accused supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the first accused. In addition, the learned counsel pointed out that going by the case put forward by the prosecution, the accused caused the death of the victim on the side of a public road near a Juma Masjid. It was argued by the learned counsel that the said place is a residential area and it is not possible for anyone to cause the death of another by strangulation. We do not find the above argument worthy of even being raised in the peculiar facts of this case. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the second accused was that since the prosecution has failed to establish the motive of the accused, they cannot be convicted. The motive for a crime is always one that is inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely for the reason that motive has not been established, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution has to be rejected, for it is trite that failure to prove motive is not fatal by itself to the case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, especially when the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, other incriminating circumstances. Coming to the facts of the case, the motive inferred and alleged is that the accused intended to take possession of the vehicle held by the deceased. As already found, the evidence tendered by PW30 shows the said motive. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the second accused is that absence of body fluid of the victim in MO7 towel creates doubt as to the genuineness of the case of the prosecution that the said material object was the ligature that was used for causing the death of the victim. We do not find any substance in this argument also. Merely for the reason that body fluid of the victim was not found on the ligature used, it cannot be said that the same was not used.

29. Another sweeping argument advanced by the learned counsel for the second accused as regards the discovery of various facts based on the information furnished by the accused is that incriminating objects were recovered from public places. True, some of the incriminating objects were recovered from public places like sides of roads. In this case, the recovery of the incriminating objects were at the instance of the accused. If the places from which the recovery of the objects were made are places which are exclusively known to the accused, according to us, the evidence tendered in this regard are not liable to be rejected.

30. As regards the evidence tendered by PW36, the fingerprint expert and Ext.P46 report, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the second accused was that the key of the lorry was seized from PW34 only on 21.09.2015 and therefore, the evidence tendered by PW36 that he collected the chance fingerprints from the lorry on 14.09.2015, cannot be relied on. PW36 has categorically stated in his evidence that he inspected the lorry on 15.09.2015 and collected the chance fingerprints. Even though PW36 was cross-examined at length, it was not suggested to PW36 by the counsel for the second accused that it was not possible to inspect the lorry for want of key on 15.09.2015. In the absence of any suggestion to PW36 that it was not possible for anyone to inspect the lorry on 15.09.2015, according to us, the second accused cannot be heard to contend that it was not possible to inspect the lorry on 15.09.2015. Even if it is found that the doors of the lorry were closed, it is permissible for the police to open the lorry by other means for inspection of the same.

31. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these appeals and are accordingly dismissed.