Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, excluding any possibility of innocence, to sustain a conviction for murder and robbery.

JUDGMENT :

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) :

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Session Case No.98/2016 thereby convicting the appellant (accused no.1) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 460 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with a default clause.

The case of the prosecution can be summarized in a narrow compass as under:

2. On 01.09.2015, Sachin Jungari (PW1) received information on the phone that his father-in-law/Dr. Jogi and mother-in-law/Mrs. Sudha Jogi are no more and therefore, he alongwith his wife Smita (PW14) and other relatives came to village Nanda. When they entered into the house of Dr. Jogi, they found that Dr. Jogi and Mrs. Jogi were lying in the pool of blood and they were murdered by some unknown person. Articles in the house were scattered. On search, Sachin (PW1) and Smita (PW14) found that one LED TV, DVD player, one set-top box, gold and silver ornaments, cash amount, coins, mobile phones and others articles were missing. On the complaint lodged by Sachin (PW1), offences under Section 302 and 460 came to be registered against unknown persons and police machinery was set into motion. The incriminating articles were seized from the spot. The investigating officer referred the dead bodies for post-mortem and prepared spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and questionnaire for the Medical Officer. Thereafter, clothes of the deceased were also seized.

3. After about nine months, the appellant alongwith other accused came to be arrested in this crime. At the instance of the appellant, the police seized weapons of the offence i.e. iron rod, stolen articles – gold and silver ornaments and other articles such as mobile phones, SIM Cards and set-top box from various places. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant and one other co-accused. The appellant and the co-accused were put on trial. The appellant and the co- accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses. The statements of the appellant and the co-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “CrPC”). After hearing, trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences whereas, the co-accused was acquitted from all charges. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal came to be filed.

4. At the outset, we must mention here that in the present case there is no eyewitness to the incident. The prosecution relied on various circumstances. The trial Court on the basis of incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, held the appellant guilty for the offence of murder and house trespass and accordingly, convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 460 and 201 of the IPC.

5. Before proceeding further, we must deal with the law on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be conclusive in nature and must be clearly established. The proved circumstances, if put together shall form a complete chain so as to point only towards the guilt of the accused by excluding the possibility of innocence of the accused and should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Keeping this principal in mind, we now proceed to examine whether the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution and considered by the trial Court are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The prosecution, firs