Circumstantial evidence, when complete and conclusive, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. - The Appellant herein is convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag vide judgment and order dated 8th June 2018 in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2015. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:-

a) Deepali Shinde (P.W.1) daughter of Leelabai and the elder sister of Manisha and Poonam, called upon her mother, Leelabai on 12th February 2015. Her cellphone was switched off and therefore, she called upon her younger sister Manisha. Her mother was residing at Maldev Shedashi, Tal-Pen along with Manisha and Poonam.

b) Upon enquiry, with Manisha she learnt that her mother had gone to visit her brother house 5 days ago. Deepali frantically kept on calling her mother but, to her utter dismay, found her phone switched off and therefore, she called upon her maternal aunt at Kudgiri. Upon enquiry, she learnt that her mother had not visited their house and therefore, she was constrained to enquire with her relatives. The whereabouts of her mother could not be traced and her cellphone was switched off. She then started calling Manisha and found that the cellphone of Manisha was also switched off. She learnt from her relative Anil Sawant that Leelabai was not in the village for the preceding 3 days. She then visited her maternal home at Maldev and met her cousin Sachin (PW.2). She learnt from Sachin that Manisha was having a love affair with Ashok Dhavale who was residing with his uncle Dhondiba at village Maldev. The villagers had opposed the love affair and therefore, there was a quarrel, with the villagers due to which he had to leave the village.

c) On 27th March 2015, she suddenly received a phone call from the cellphone of her mother by some unknown person who informed her that her mother was critical and her sister was on oxygen. He even told her that he would call upon her after half an hour but she had received no call. She had no knowledge as to where her mother was hospitalized or the place from where she had received the call.

d) On 1st April 2015, she received a call from the same person from the cellphone of her mother asking her to come alone to a place if she wanted to meet her mother. The caller did not allow PW.1 to speak to her mother subsequently, the caller had asked her to come to village Akalpe, where she would be picked up by some person. She disclosed about the said facts to her in-laws who asked her to promptly lodge a missing report. Accordingly, she lodged a missing report at the police station on 16th April 2015. On 19th April 2015 she had lodged a report against unknown persons. On the basis of which, Crime No. 70/2015 was registered at Pen Police Station for the offences punishable under section 363 and 365 and investigation was set in motion but since she had expressed suspicion against the accused Ashok Dhavale, he was apprehended by the police on 19th April 2015 itself. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

e) The prosecution has placed implicit reliance upon the substantive evidence of PW.1-Deepali Shinde (the complainant). PW.2-Sachin Sawant, the cousin of PW.1. PW.3 Shailesh Joshi, the panch for discovery of dead bodies and cellphone of the deceased at the instance of the accused/appellant. PW.4-Shalaka (inquest panch), PW.5- Pramod Salvi, the panch for recovery of letters between Manisha and the accused and a chain with a Swastik Pendant, 4 photos, out of which one photo was of Manisha and the accused Ashok. PW.6, Circle Inspector who has drawn the sketch of the place from where the dead bodies were discovered. PW.9-Dhananjay, the nodal officer of Tata Telly Services. PW.10-Dr. Rohan Thorat who conducted a