Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recoveries snaps chain entitling accused to acquittal benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2010, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. The Appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., and has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:

a. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10^th January 2010 at about 9.00 a.m. when the Complaint P.W. 1 - Prashant Raut was on his way towards National School, he saw a dead body with crushed face under a Tamarind Tree near National School. Since the place was falling within the jurisdiction of Virar Police Station, he informed the police. Accordingly, C.R. No. I-8 of 2010 was lodged in Virar Police Station.

b. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the investigation commenced. The identity of the body was tried to be ascertained by publishing her photo in a newspaper. It is the case of the prosecution that the parents of the lady identified her as their daughter Kantabai. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by the Local Crime Branch, Vasai Unit.

c. During the investigation, the telephone call records of the mobile phone of the deceased Kantabai were checked, which led to a few calls from the phone belonging to one Sapana Shetye and her husband Prasad Shetye. Inquiry with them led to the present Appellant. On 31.01.2010 the Appellant was arrested.

d. The investigation was further carried out and the chargesheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Session and the Appellant faced the trial in Session Case No. 48 of 2010 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai at Vasai.

3. The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution during the course of trial:

4. Thereafter, 313 Statement of the Accused came to be recorded. Arguments were heard and the Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. The Appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., and has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

5. The Accused-Appellant preferred the Appeal before this Court challenging the aforementioned impugned judgement and order of conviction. The appeal came to be admitted on 21.06.2012.

6. We have heard Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Ms. Sangita Phad, Learned APP for the State.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances that have been