S.M. MODAK, J.

1. Four convicted accused persons have assailed before us the judgment dated 3rd April, 2014 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2013. All are convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2. There was a love affair in between Lalita (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 2014) and Sardar Khan Pathan (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2014) Shri Ashok Walkondawar, being the husband of appellant, Lalita, was coming in their way. For eliminating him, appellants, Lalita and Sardar Khan, hatched a criminal conspiracy and they took the help of Huma Ali Yunus Ali (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2014). He offered his “Indica” Car for travelling, whereas Vinod Kerbaji Kurode (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2014) rendered his services as a driver. Appellant, Lalita, used to narrate her ill-treatment at the hands of deceased Ashok to her paramour – appellant, Sardar Khan.

3. In pursuance to that conspiracy, appellant, Lalita, brought her deceased husband, Ashok, to Kathoda Phata, and there all the three appellants also came. All the three appellants along with deceased Ashok sat in the Indica car and they went to village Saibori, Tq. Mahagaon, District Yavatmal. There, they consumed alcohol. There was an agricultural field of Nujat Ali. They injected dog killing medicine to the deceased and killed him by strangulation. They took the dead body to the house of appellant, Sardar Khan, at village Patan (Adilabad) [Andhra Pradesh].

4. Somehow Pusad villagers came to know about the incident. It was made known to Pusad Police also. On suspicion, police took the custody of appellants, Sardar Khan and Vinod Kurode. Pusad police enquired with their counterparts at Korpana, District Chandrapur, about missing of deceased Ashok Walkondawar. On enquiry with appellant, Lalita, it was confirmed. Then, Pusad Police handed over the appellants, Sardar Khan and Vinod Kurode, to Korpana Police Station. Appellant, Lalita, was made as the first informant and the offence of kidnapping, murder and destroying of evidence was registered. Completion of investigation resulted into filing of a charge-sheet against four appellants. Wife, Lalita and her paramour, Sardar Khan, were impleaded as Accused Nos. 1 and 2, whereas driver, Vinod, and owner of the Indica Car, Huma Ali, were impleaded as Accused Nos. 3 and 4. All were convicted after trial by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur.

5. We have heard learned Adv. Shri Tiwari for the appellant, Huma Ali, and learned Adv. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar for rest of the three appellants. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri N.B. Jawade, argued on behalf of the State. With their assistance, we have gone through the records. On their perusal, we find that the conviction is not proper. Learned trial Judge has discussed about the law on the point of conspiracy properly. But when he comes to the question of appreciation of evidence, he has overlooked the missing links and established principles of appreciation of evidence.

6. It is true that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is difficult to gather the evidence in such type of cases. It is still more difficult if the incident has taken place at various places. It is also difficult to collect the evidence, particularly when the incident took place in the night hours.

7. It is pertinent to note that there are three places of the incident in question. One is the place from where appellant, Lalita, handed over her deceased husband, Ashok, to rest of the three accused persons. It is at Kathoda Phata, Tq. Korpana, District Chandrapur. The second place is situated in the agricultural field of Nujat Ali at village Saibori, District Yavatmal. The third place is situated in the house of appellant, Sardar Khan, at village Patan (Adilabad) [Andhra Pradesh]. The dead body was buried and exhumed from that place.

8. After