(25) 54/­ S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) Thus, APP Shri Mugadiya has strongly argued that the evidence on record apparently makes it clear that on the date of incident, accused entered into the house of Mansi in order to commit theft & robbery. When Mansi protested, accused No.1 committed rape on her and then he committed her murder. According to him, the P.M.Report and the evidence of Dr.Mugdalimath categorically discloses the homicidal death of Mansi and also the fact that she was raped. Recovery of mobile phone from accused No.2 also discloses that the accused Jawed handed over that stolen mobile to Pradeep Chandaliya towards his payment of bill and API Patare traced that mobile from the IMEI number of that mobile mentioned in receipt at Exh­39. According to him, that categorically proved the involvement of accused Jawed and accused Pradeep in the crime. Similarly, the recovery of gold ring at the instance of Ram Bodkhe from the electric motor room in Tulsi Chamber also shows that the said accused Ram Bodkhe was knowing that it was stolen property and therefore he had hidden that ring in that electric motor room. Thus he has argued that against accused Ram Bodkhe also the charge under Section 411 is proved. 55/­ APP Shri Mugadiy has also argued that the C.A. Reports and D.N.A