The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, as well as the need to establish a close link between the alleged discovery of the murder weapon and its use in the commission of the offence.

Per Ashwani Kumar Singh. J.1.Today, a petition has been filed in the Court stating therein that appellant No 1 Islam Jilani and appellant No 5 Bibi Rasulan have already died during pendency of this appeal. Let it be kept on record. We need not pass any order in this petition in view of the order we are going to pass in this case.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.1989 passed by Shri H K Prasad, the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No 37 of 1986 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2.000/- each and Rs.1.000/- each respectively for each of the sentences with a default clause which stipulates that failure to pay fine would make them liable to imprisonment for a further period of 3 years and 6 months respectively for each of the offence.

3. The prosecution case is based on written report of one Jayees Kumar (PW 12) submitted to the Officer-in-charge, Gopalganj Police Station on 13.01.1986 at 8 pm stating therein that a day before in the evening at about 6.30 pm, he heard rumour that in Mohalla-Jangalia, daughter-in-law of appellant No 1 Islam Jilani was probably killed and effort was being made to bury the dead body stealthily. Station Diary Entry being Station Diary Entry No 375 dated 13.01.1986 was made and in order to verify the truth of the rumour, the informant proceeded to the place of occurrence alongwith anned policy party. When they reached to the house of the appellant, appellant No 1 Islam Jilani, appellant No 2 Gulam Hasan and appellant No 3 Gulam Safdar were found present near the door. They accepted the death of daughter-in-law of appellant No 1 due to ailment. When a request was made to show the dead body, appellant No 1 told that since daughters-in-law live in Zanana Qita, he does not go there. When the informant became a bit firm, appellant No 1 asked his two sons. appellants No 2 and 3 to show the dead body. Then they reached near the dead body which was found wrapped in a shroud lying in verandah on the upper storey of the house. On unwrapping the shroud, the dead body of Asma Khatoon, on which there was bleeding injury on neck, was found. The dead body was cleansed. Blood was also found on plung and the floor which was also cleansed. On enquiry, the accused persons gave unsatisfactory reply. They could not explain the reasons for not informing regarding the incident to the Police Station. The informant suspected that it was a case of murder committed by the appellants who all were found present inside the house.

4. On the basis of the written statement of the informant (PW 12), a first information report was registered on the same day that is on 13.01.1986 at 9 pm under Sections 302, 201 read with 34, IPC. Since the informant had already took up the investigation, the Officer-in-charge entrusted the investigation to him. The informant conducted the investigation and on conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet in the case under Sections 302, 201 read with 34, IPC against all the five named accused persons. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, took cognizance of the offence and since the offences were triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses. PW 1 Benchu Mian is a witness to the inquest. PW 2 Md Khalil Ansari is father of the deceased. PW 3 Shaukat Ali is related as uncle of the deceased. PW 4 Md Akula has been declared hostile, PW 5 Md Noor Alam Ansari is also a witness to inquest and some seizures made in course of investigation, PW 6 Manendra Kumar is a tenant of the house of the appellant. PW