ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 302/364/201 IPC.

2. The appellant along with Kulwant Singh, Sinder Singh and Piara Singh was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala for the aforesaid offences. By judgment dated July 23, 1988 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000 under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 364 IPC, he was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000 and in default, to suffer 1 year rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500 and in default, 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently while the three co-accused were acquitted. No appeal was filed in the High Court against the acquittal of the three co-accused. The appellants appeal before the High Court against his conviction and sentence failed.

3. There is no eyewitness in this case. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution before the trial court and the High Court were as follows:

(1) Last seen together.

(2) Recovery of the shoes of the deceased at the instance of the appellant pursuant to a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, besides recovery of empty liquor bottles and a glass.

(3) Extrajudicial confessions made before Sarpanch of the village on July 16, 1986.

(4) A false explanation given by the appellant to the father of the deceased, when he went looking for his son on the night of the occurrence.

4. Reliance was also placed on the alleged motive and the absconding of the appellant but both were found to be feeble pieces of evidence and not given much credence.

5. According to the prosecution case the deceased Tarsem Singh had returned to the house after doing the masonry work in the house of Mukhtiar Singh at about 7.30 p.m. on July 8, 1986. His father Kaka Singh was present at the house. The appellant is alleged to have gone to the house of Kaka Singh and called the deceased and both of them went out of his house together. At about 7.30 p.m. on the same date, i.e. on July 8, 1986, Harbhagwan PW 4, saw the appellant and the deceased proceeding from the house of the deceased towards the Bhakra Canal. The accused and the deceased were also seen together taking liquor by Gurmail Singh PW 5 at about 8.00 p.m. At about 8.45 p.m. Devi Dayal PW 6 saw the deceased and the accused sitting on the bank of Bhakra Canal. When the deceased did not return home, his father Kaka Singh PW 2 started making enquiries about him and went to the house of the appellant. On enquiry he was told that the deceased might have gone somewhere and would shortly return to the house. It is then the prosecution case that the father of the deceased Kaka Singh PW 2, continued search for his son but to no avail and then on July 13, 1986, he lodged the first information report, Exhibit PG, for an offence under Section 364 IPC. The police party swung into action and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the canal on July 15, 1986. The appellant was searched for but was not traceable till July 15, 1986. Subsequently, the appellant is alleged to have made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of two empty liquor bottles and a glass from behind the bushes which were sealed and sent to Malkhana. The appellant is also alleged to have made an extrajudicial confession before Parampal Singh, PW 12, Sarpanch of the village, confessing the guilt. The appellant after his arrest made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to the recovery of a pair of shoes (juti) which were identified by Kaka Singh PW 2, father of the deceased, as belonging