The judgment establishes the legal principle that suspicion cannot substitute for legally admissible evidence in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence. It emphasizes the need for a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Greater Bombay in Sessions case no.310 of 2009 (State of Maharashtra vs. Nijamuddin A. Shaikh & Ors.), the two Appellants have preferred the present Appeal for their conviction under section 302, 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay convicted the present Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also convicted the present Appellants for the offences punishable under section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for one month. By the said judgment, the accused no.3-Shabbir Jamil Badshah came to be acquitted since no clinching evidence to rope the said accused was brought on record by the prosecution.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9th February, 2009, Police Inspector Borade attached to Trombay Police Station, Thane, received phone call from police constable Shri Bhosale who was posted on duty at Shatabdi Hospital. It was informed by him that one person has been admitted to the said hospital in an unconscious condition. Two persons who had brought the injured to the hospital were named as Hanif Jamal Shaikh and one Dilshad Wajidmiya Shaikh (Appellant no.2). The medical officer examined the said person who was brought to the hospital and he was declared dead. On the basis of said information, AD No.17 of 2009 was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). On receipt of the said information, the police officials from Trombay police station proceeded to the Shatabdi Hospital for the purpose of further inquiry. On reaching hospital, the dead body of the person was shown to Police Inspector Borade who was identified as Sayyad Jafar, aged 26 years and the two persons who had brought the said person to the hospital were also pointed out. It was noticed that the dead body did not bear any external injuries barring an injury on the left leg below the ankle and an abrasion on the right hand. The inquest panchanama was carried out and the body was forwarded for conducting the postmortem. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the person who was admitted in Shatabti hospital on 9th February, 2009, was working as a worker in a Jari workshop owned by appellant no.1 located at V Sector Chita Camp, Trombay, Mumbai. The investigation revealed that he was working with one employer namely Nijamuddin Shaikh and he had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from his employer and had failed to return an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The investigation reveal that the said employer Nijamuddin with the assistance of two other person including accused no.2 Dilshad and accused No.3 Shabbir had called the deceased to the workshop, confined him at the said place and with a common intention and common object inflicted injuries on the said person which had caused his death. On the basis of the said information received, FIR was registered with Trombay Police Station and on the basis of the said FIR, the investigating machinery was set into motion.

During the course of investigation, the investigating agency recorded the statement of co-worker who was working along with the deceased Sayyed Jafar. The postmortem report was obtained and on suspicion three accused persons amongst whom two are the appellants before this Court were arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and Section 320 read with Section 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, disclosure and recovery panchanama was also executed at the instance of accused no.3 Shabbir, which resulted into recovery of one iron chai