The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be fully established beyond reasonable doubt and wholly inconsistent with the accused's innocence. Additionally, the judgment emphasized the inadmissibility of confessional statements made in the presence of police officers if not voluntary.

I.P.Singh, J.

1. These three appeals have been heard together as they are directed against the common judgment passed in ST No. 563/1996 by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran Motihari. This judgment will govern all of them. Though in all these appeals similar grounds have been taken while dealing with them I will refer to the grounds taken in Cr. Appeal No. 510/2000 filed by Munna Diwan alias Bhuwan Diwan.

2. From the prosecution case it appears that Neha Kumari aged about six years, daughter of the informant Awadh Kishore Prasad (PW 12) had gone out at about 2 p.m. on 15.7.1996 for playing. She, however, did not return back to the house. On this PW 12 along with his father Laxmi Prasad went out in her search but could not fined her. On the next day (16.7.1996) at about 3 p.m. Madan Kishore Prasad (PW 6) came to the informant (PW 12) and disclosed him that in the night between 15th/ 16th July, 1996 at about 11 p.m. while PW 6 along with Gauri Shankar Prasad (PW 4) was going to attend the call of nature they noticed appellant Munna Diwan with a gunny bag on his head. The rest two appellants were also with him. On inquiry they disclosed that they are carrying certain articles. PWs 4 and 6 returned back to their houses and on the following day they had to go outside the village. When on their return they learnt about the missing of the deceased Neha Kumari they came to PW 12 and informed him about this incident.

3. On having coming to learn about it PW 12 and other villagers started searching for appellant Munna Diwan. While they were moving in the village they could notice him while he was trying to escape. On chase this appellant was caught in course of which he sustained certain injuries. He confessed before the villagers about having committed the offence of murder. In the meantime, the Sub-Inspector of Police Sub- odh Choudhary (PW 16) also reached there and asked questions to appellant Munna Diwan. He confessed his guilt which was, however, not recorded on the same day. PW 16 also found marks of injury on the person of this appellant. The police after completing investigations submitted charge-sheet. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. It was finally heard by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari who convicted the appellants under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentence each of them to imprisonment for life. He further convicted each of them under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life. Further the appellants were convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. In these appeals the appellants have contended that the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. No body has seen them taking away the deceased nor there is any eye-witness on the point of killing of the deceased or disposing of the body. Only taking away a gunny bag on head can hardly go to show that a dead body was being carried in it. It is alleged that the deceased girl was kidnapped from outside the Video Hall in broad day light. This story can not be believed as it would have certainly attracted the attention of the villagers. The rope alleged to have been used in the strangulation of the deceased has not been identified by PWs. So far as the confession is concerned it is relevant to state here, that soon after the appellant, Munna Diwan was caught, the police also reached there and his confessional statement which was made in presence of the police was neither recorded by the police nor by any body else, at the time when this statement was made. Independent and competent witnesses have not been examined in this case. There is no material to proved the alleged confessional statement made by the appellant Munna Diwan. On these grounds, a