IMPORTANT POINT
Where case was based on circumstantial evidence and circumstances proved by cogent evidence formed a complete chain to point to involvement of accused in the crime, conviction could not be interfered with.

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J. — All the above three appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 16.11.1984, passed in Session Trial No. 16 of 1983 by, the then, learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, whereby appellant Tara Singh and appellant Ramesh Singh have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity hereinafter I.P.C.) and also under Section 201 of I.P.C., and each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 and four year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, by the same judgment and order has acquitted Diwan Singh S/o Nathu Singh and Diwan Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, from the charges framed against them.

2)Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellants Tara Singh, Ramesh Singh, respondents Diwan Singh (S/o Nathu Singh) and Diwan Singh (S/o Mahendra Singh) are resident of the same village Bhatti Gaon (District Pithoragarh) and closely related to each other. Convict-appellant Tara Singh is son of accused Diwan Singh (S/o Nathu Singh), and Convict-appellant Ramesh Singh is son of accused Diwan Singh (S/o Mahendra Singh). The accused persons had enmity with the family of the complainant Pratap Singh (P.W.4) and his brother Mohan Singh (father of the deceased). About three days prior to the date of incident, the accused persons gave a threat to the complainant and his family that they would put an end to his family lineage. Thereafter, on 15.10.1982, at about 1:30 P.M., while grazing his cattle, Ram Singh (father of complainant Pratap Singh) asked his grandson Bharat Singh (deceased) to look after the cattle till he returns there after having his lunch from his house. As told by his grandfather, Bharat Singh, a boy aged five years, started grazing the cattle. After sometime when Ram Singh came back from his house, he found that the boy was not there. He called out his grandson by name but there was no response. On this Ram Singh with the help of his son Pratap Singh (P.W. 4) started their search for the boy. In the evening, Pratap Singh (P.W.4) informed the Patwari (a revenue officer) that Bharat Singh was missing. Thereafter, again they started searching for the missing boy till late night and again from the next morning. At about 11:00 A.M., on 16.10.1982, the dead body of the boy (Bharat Singh) was found lying in a cave. Immediately, first information report (Ext. A-5) was lodged with the Patwari. (In Uttaranchal hills Patwaris have police powers to register and investigate the crimes). In said report accused Diwan Singh S/o Nathu Singh; accused Diwan Singh S/o Mahendra Singh; and accused Ramesh Singh S/o Diwan Singh were named on suspicion by P.W.4, Pratap Singh (real uncle of the deceased). The dead body was taken into custody by the Patwari Ganga Datt Pandey (Investigating Officer), P.W.5, who prepared the inquest report (Ext. A-6) sketch of the dead body (Ext. A-7), police form No. 13 (Ext. A-8), letter to the Chief Medical Officer (Ext. A-9) for getting conducted the post-mortem report. He also prepared the sample seal (Ext. A-10). Dr. C.B. Pal (P.W.2) conducted the autopsy on 18.10.1982, at about 3:10 P.M., in the District Headquarters at Pithoragarh, and prepared the post-mortem report (Ext. A-l). The said Medical Officer found following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

i)Ligature marking 2.5 cm in breadth encircling the neck transversally and obliquely. The whole of ligature mark depressed, encircling upto back of both ears. Knot on the left side,

ii)Lacerated wound on the back of head measuring 3.5 cm X1 cm X bone deep,

iii)Abrasion mark measuring 3.5 Cm X 0.5 cm, obliquely on the left side of the forehead,

iv)Contusion mark measuring 5 cm X 2 cm on the anterior part of the left axila,

v)Multiple contusion and abrasion mark present all over the body,

vi)Contusion mark 4 cm X 0.5 cm, just below the chin.

In the opinion of the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy, the cause of dea