Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of facts linking the accused to the crime; absence of conclusive proof leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

R.G. Avachat, J.

Both these appeals are taken up together for decision, since the challenge therein is to one and the same judgment of conviction and order of consequential sentence passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Osmanabad (trial court), on 14.08.2020 in Sessions Case No.89 of 2016. The relevant part of the impugned order reads thus :-

1. Accused No.1 - Prakash Suryakant Chapekar, resident of Pune is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120(B) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousands only), in default, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Accused no.1 Prakash Suryakant Chapekar, resident of Pune is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide Section 235(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand only) in default he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for Three months.

3. Accused no.2 Datta Subhash Lohar, resident of Wagholi, Taluka and District Osmanabad is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 02 read with Section 120(B) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousands only), in default he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

4. Accused No.3 Pratibha Prakash Chapekar, resident of Pune is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 02 read with Section 120(B) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand only), in default she shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

5. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently vide Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

………………

……………… ”

2. Criminal Appeal No.480 of 2020 has been preferred by original accused no.2 - Datta Subhash Lohar, while Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2020 has been preferred by original accused nos.1 and 3, Prakash Suryakant Chapekar and Pratibha Prakash Chapekar, husband and wife inter se. The appellant - Datta is brother of appellant – Pratibha (brother-in-law of appellant – Prakash).

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:-

The appellant Prakash, initially, was serving with “Blue Dart company”, at Pune. The deceased - Kanchan Popatlal Pardeshi would also serve with the same company. The appellant Prakash was her boss. On account of nature of business of the company, both were required to travel together. The acquaintance between the two developed into emotional relationship. Efforts made by the parents of Kanchan to ensure disassociation between the two failed. It is also the case of prosecution that the appellant Prakash left the job with Blue Dart company and joined Great Wall Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., at Nagpur. He, thereafter, shifted to Nagpur. Kanchan too left the job with Blue Dart. The appellant Prakash, initially, stayed alone at Nagpur and then, took a flat on rent for residence. Kanchan joined him. Both of them started residing together as husband and wife. The appellant Pratibha along with her children happened to visit Nagpur. The friends of the appellant Prakash then realised that Kanchan was not the legally wedded wife of the appellant Prakash. To get rid of relationship with Kanchan, the appellant Prakash with the assistance of his brother-in-law – Datta and wife (Pr