IMPORTANT POINT
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, and confessions made in police custody must meet strict admissibility criteria under the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the appeals (six appellants therein) have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur for the appellants and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh and Mr. Ajay Mishra, APPs for the State.

3. All the six appellants have been convicted under Sections 364, 302, 201, 149 and 120B IPC vide judgment dated 19.06.2017 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2016. By order dated 22.06.2017, they have have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC; R.I. for ten years, fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 364/149 IPC. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 120(B) IPC. For the offence under Section 301/149, the appellants have been directed to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment, to further suffer R.I. for six months. The entire fine amount has been directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. A further direction has been given to the District Legal Services Authority, Sheikhpura for deciding about the quantum of compensation which ought to be awarded to the heirs of the deceased under the victim compensation scheme.

4. The appellants are said to have killed the deceased/Sanjeet Kumar after strangulating him and then cutting of his head and burying the trunk and head both in the jungle. No motive has been assigned by the prosecution for the aforenoted killing. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence, nor is there any enmity against the deceased or his family members with the appellants. In fact, the F.I.R regarding the deceased having gone missing was lodged on 24.10.2015 by the elder brother of the deceased, namely, Sunil Kumar Suman (PW14). The deceased had gone out of the house on 22.10.2015 at about 6. P.M. along with one Shailendra Kumar for visiting the fair organized on the eve of Dussehra festival. However, when he did not return till the next day, an enquiry was made from afore-noted Shailendra, but he disclosed that he had left the company of the deceased in the night of 22.10.2015 only. On further search, it was gathered by PW14 that one Binod Paswan, who has not been examined at the Trial had seen the deceased along with appellant/Sanjay Mandal standing near the vehicle belonging to him. There were some other persons also, who were drinking along with the owner of a local restaurant. On such information by Binod Paswan, PW14 came to the conclusion that perhaps the accused persons, namely, Shailendra, Sanjay Mandal and the restaurateur along with others might have killed the deceased.

5. On the basis of written report lodged by PW14 with the aforenoted information, a case vide Ariari P.S. Case No. 116/2015 dated 24.10.2015 was registered for investigation against aforenoted Shailendra Kumar, Sanjay Mandal and the restaurateur along with some unknown persons.

6. The police did not find the complicity of aforesaid Shailendra Kumar and the restaurateur referred to in the F.I.R. In fact, the prosecution case is that since appellant/Sanjay Mandal was a suspect as was seen last along with the deceased, he was arrested along with his brother, namely, Guddu Mandal and on the confession of Guddu Mandal, other accused persons/appellants were also arrested. The confession of Guddu Mandal before the police led to the recovery of the trunk and the head of the deceased as also a sickle with blood-stains from the jungle. Only such persons were proceeded against who were named in the confession.

7. Ultimately, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellants, six in number, who were put on Trial.

8. The Trial Court, after having examined seventeen witnesses on behalf of the prose