The court confirmed that circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt when supported by consistent and corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. The Appellants assail the Judgment and Order dated 30^th March 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.111 of 2012. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), 1860 and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default of which, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months. The Appellants are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC for which they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of which, to undergo imprisonment for the period of three months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. The period undergone in jail till today is to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 The informant, one Kamlesh Dinkarrai Thakkar (PW/1), is the younger brother of the deceased Shankar Thakkar. The deceased was engaged in embroidery business in a workshop no.16-A, Shivprabha Building, Ghatkopar, Mumbai. The deceased used to ordinarily leave his house for work at 10:00 am and return at 11:00 pm.

2.2 On the fatal day, i.e. on 5^th November 2011, the deceased left his house at approximately 12:00 noon to go to the workshop. His wife, Kunjan (PW/2), had gone to her parents’ house at Dombivali. The informant (brother of the deceased) called the deceased on his phone when he failed to return home at night, but his mobile phone was switched off. So, he called his wife who informed him that she had spoken to the deceased at 4:00 pm on his mobile phone. Thereafter, both the informant and Kunjan tried calling the deceased but his mobile phone was switched off.

2.3 On the following day, when there was still no sign of the deceased, the informant went to his workshop only to find it locked. Once again, the mobile phone of the deceased came as switched off. On 7^th November 2011, the informant once again went to the workshop at 10:00 am. Again he found it to be locked. He thus, inquired with one Kamal Thakkar (PW/7), owner of a shop adjacent to that of his brother’s, who informed him that the workshop was closed since Saturday, i.e. from 5^th November 2011. The informant also inquired with other neighbours without any success of tracing his brother. When he went near the shop, again on 7^th November 2011 there was a foul smell emanating from the workshop. The police were informed, who came to the workshop and broke open the lock. Upon opening the shutter of the workshop, the deceased was found lying dead in a pool of blood in his cabin floor with a cable wire tied around his neck and blood was seen having oozed out from his mouth and nose. There was a bleeding injury on the back of his head. Pieces of bricks stained with blood were lying on the floor and one coir rope was lying on the chest of the deceased. A chair was also seen overturned at the spot.

2.4 Accordingly, FIR came to be registered on the complaint of Kamlesh Thakkar, brother of the deceased. Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama were prepared and the body was sent for post- mortem examination. The police seized a computer wire, which was tied around the neck of the dead body, pieces of blood stained bricks and blood stained clothes of the deceased. Blood samples were collected. The samples collected were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) for analysis. Photographs of the scene of the incident were taken. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Two persons out of four, working with the deceased were missing. These were the Appellants. The Police Inspector of the Ghatkopar Police Station collected the Call Details Record (‘CDR’) of the Appellants. The Appellant-Anilkumar was found to be staying at one lodge in a Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. He was arrested and a