The judgment establishes the principle that a complete chain of evidence, including circumstantial evidence, confessional statements, and recovery of material evidence, can lead to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.6.2008 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Sessions Trial no.652 of 2003 by which the appellants were convicted under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. They were heard on the point of sentence on 21.6.2008 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine were directed to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment for committing the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief , is that Golu aged about four years, son of the informant Arun Kumar Singh (P.W.8), was found missing from 2 P.M. on 18.3.2002. The informant gave information to the Gardanibagh Police Station and came to know that appellant Krishna Sharma, in collusion with his wife, appellant Meena Sharma had caused Golu to disappear. The informant and others enquired from the appellant Krishna Sharma, who confessed the kidnapping of son of the informant and told that the child had been kept with his friend Pappu at Bangali Tola, Mithapur and gave a letter to the informant and asked him to go to Pappu from whom he would get his son. It has been alleged that the appellants in collusion with their friend, Pappu, had caused to disappear the aforesaid son of the informant. The written information, to this effect, was given to the officer-in-charge of Gardanibagh Police Station, on the basis of which Gardanibagh P. S. Case no. 190 of 2002 was registered on 21.3.2002. After investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellants. The case was committed to the court of sessions. After trial, both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. The defence of the appellants as evident from the cross-examination is total denial of the offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

4. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. No one has claimed that he had seen the child being killed by the appellant. The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. P.W.5 (Manju Devi) claims to have identified the appellant Krishna Sharma, who was having a child in his lap and later on, she had also seen a woman, who had later been identified as Meena Sharma. But from careful consideration of her evidence, it appears like a cock and bull story has been carried upon by the learned trial court. There is also no link to connect the appellants to cause the death of the child (deceased). At best only the recovery part can be considered to be proved against the appellant Krishna Sharma at whose instance the dead body has been recovered. The evidence of P.W.3 (Kameshwar Rai) is also not helpful to the prosecution who had stated that he saw the appellants in the mid-night at the back side of Keshri Bhawan where the septic tank was situated. He had stated that his cattle shed was behind the said Keshri Bhawan and all of a sudden he woke up in the mid-night and saw the appellants and on his query, they told that some article had been lost there and they were searching the same. Thereafter, P.W.3 went to sleep. P.W.3 had not stated that at that time he saw the appellants with the deceased nor had seen the appellants killing Golu (deceased). He has also submitted that five golden principles for appreciation of the circumstantial evidence, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, are not present in the instant case and, as such, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants.

5. Learne