The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly linking the accused to the crime, which warranted a life sentence in this case.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J.

1. These Appeals are preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence, whereas by the accused challenging the order of sentence and conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 16/2017 dated 30.11.2018, by which the accused is convicted as under:

1(i). The accused is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3 64-A read with Section 3 4 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

1(ii). The accused is further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3 02 read with Section 3 4 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

1(iii). The accused is further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

1(iv). The accused is further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 176/2019 is preferred by the State seeking capital punishment, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 178/2019 preferred by the accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case emerges from the Police papers and recorded evidence are as under:

3(i). The Informant Babita Bhaskar Sahare is resident of Samta Nagar Ward No. 1, Chandrapur having two sons Bhavik and Bhardwaj. She as well as her husband are doing the labour work. On 15.09.2016, she had gone for work at 07.30 a.m., it was the day of Ganpati Visarjan. She returned from the work at 05.00 p.m., at the relevant time her husband and her elder son Bhavik were present in the house. Her younger son Bhardwaj alias Sonu was not in the house. Therefore, she enquired with her husband. Her husband informed that he returned from the work at 02.00 p.m., at that time he was playing with the other children. After half an hour of his return to home, Bhardwaj came home, took his mobile for playing the game and did not return home. Mother of Bhardwaj who is the Informant tried to call on his mobile but the mobile was switched off, therefore she made an enquiry in the neighborhood but he was not traced. They thought that he might have gone to see the procession of Lord Ganesh but her son was not returned home late night. Therefore, she alongwith her husband, another son and neighbours took the search but her son was not found.

3(ii). The accused who is her neighbour was also enquired and he disclosed that he gave Rs.10/- to Bhradwaj in the afternoon and since then he did not see him. As the son of the Informant was not found, she approached the Police Station and informed the Police.

3(iii). On the next day in the morning, the mobile phone which was taken by her son was found to her in the courtyard. The phone was of Nokia company having two sim cards one of Idea company and other was of Vodafone having Idea sim card No. 9623515809 and Vodafone sim card No. 8698134726. The said phone was found wrapped in a polythene bag. She took the said mobile phone and switched it on but immed