In circumstantial evidence murder cases, prosecution must prove each link beyond reasonable doubt forming complete chain excluding other hypotheses; deficiencies in motive, last seen, confession, recovery and forensics justify acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 7^th October, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadgaon, Taluka Maval, District Pune, in Sessions Case No.218 of 2022. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the . He was also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of the . The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The default sentences were directed to run consecutively. The compensation was directed to be given to the legal heirs of the victim.

2. Heard learned Counsel Ms. Sahana Manjesh for the Appellant and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. P.P for the State.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The deceased - Aniruddha Nalkar and the Appellant were labourers working together. In the night, at around 9.30 p.m. on 24^th April, 2017, there was a quarrel between both of them. The Appellant did not like Aniruddha talking with the Appellant’s wife. The others present there had pacified both of them. On the next day, early morning, Aniruddha Nalkar was found dead at the same spot where they were sleeping. The Appellant was not seen anywhere. The Police Officers of Lonavala City Police Station, Pune were informed. They registered the offence vide C.R.No. 59 o 2017 at about 11.32 a.m. The investigation was carried out. It is the prosecution case that in the morning of 25^th April, 2017, the Appellant met one Babassaheb Ingale and confessed to having killed one person. The Appellant was arrested on 25^th April, 2017 itself. The investigation continued.

Different panchanamas were conducted.

According to the prosecution case, the murder weapon was a hammer, which was recovered at the instance of the Appellant on 27^th April, 2017 from a park. In the meantime, the Post Mortem examination was conducted. The seized articles were sent for Chemical Analysis. At the conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses including the first informant, the person to whom the alleged extra judicial confession was made, the panchas, the medical officer and the investigating officers. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial.

5. The learned Judge relied on the circumstances, motive, recovery of hammer and extra judicial confession. Based on the circumstantial evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned earlier.

6. PW1- Vijay Manaji Harpude had lodged the FIR. He deposed that in the year 2017, he used to give his open space temporarily