IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2002, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 31.01.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1998 by which the appellants herein were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each.

2. Brief facts:

A. This is a case of kidnapping and murder of a 7 year old child out of enmity.

B. On 16.04.1998, Leeladhar (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station, Barmer stating that on 15.04.1998 his son Kamlesh aged about 7 years left for the school in the morning but did not return home till evening at 7.00 p.m. In pursuance of the said report, the police made a search. On 19.04.1998, on an information by Hansraj (PW-8), Khet Singh (PW-9) and Bheemaram (PW-11) that a dead body of a boy was found lying on the hill of Sujeshwar in mutilated condition, the police along with one Leeladhar (PW- 1) went to the spot. They found that some parts of the dead body were

eaten by the animals. From the clothes, shoes, socks and school bag, PW-1 identified the dead body as that of his son.

C. On 19.04.1998, another report of kidnapping and murder was lodged by Leeladhar (PW-1) suspecting the involvement of Ramesh S/o Dashrath, Prakash s/o Gautamchand, Ramesh @ Papiya S/o Bhanwar Lal, Pannu, Inder S/o Murlidhar, Ganesh and Pappu. After the investigation and recovery, the police arrested Prakash, Ramesh @ Papia and Ramesh Khatri on 22.04.1998 and a charge sheet under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B of IPC was filed against the accused persons.

D. By order dated 31.01.2002 in Sessions Case No.28 of 1998, the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer convicted all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B of IPC and sentenced them under Section 302, to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 364, RI for 7 years with a fine of Rs.2000 each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo RI for 6 months and under Section 120-B to undergo 7 years RI with a fine

of Rs.2000 each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 6 months RI.

E. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants

filed appeal being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2002 before the High Court. By order dated 02.03.2006, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.

F. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred these

appeals by way of special leave.

3. Heard Mr. Seeraj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Shovan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

Discussion:

4. In the case on hand, the prosecution case rests solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It was contended by the learned amicus curiae for the appellants that in the absence of direct evidence, the slightest of a discrepancy, depicting the possibility of two views would exculpate the accused of guilt, on the basis of benefit of doubt. Before considering the materials placed by the prosecution and the defence, let us analyse the legal position as declared by this Court on the standard of proof required for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In a

leading decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, this Court elaborately considered the standard of proof required for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence and laid down the golden principles of standard of proof required in a case sought to be established on the basis