The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of last seen evidence and the presumption of fact under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to infer the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.

( 1 ) THE petitioners seeks to challenge the order/judgment passed by the district and Session Judge in case No. 15/91 dated 8. 7. 1992 whereby the Judge held the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and also guilty under Section 27 Arms Act. He further on 9. 7. 1992 sentenced the accused persons for life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC together with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two years and also sentenced Sanjay under Section 27 of the arms Act for three years imprisonment and Rs. 500/- as fine, in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for two months. Facts of the case as have been noted by the learned District Judge as under. "the case was registered on the statement of PW5 on dated 16th June, 1991. On dated 16th June, 1991 Babu Lal PW5 got recorded his statement that he puts up at b-357, Mangolpuri, Delhi with his daughter Babli and son Sohan and he was a sweeper in Municipal Corporation. Two boys namely Vishnu son of Om Parkash and sanjay son of Ram Kishan also lived in his neighbourhood and they used to visit his house off and on. They also used to roam about with his son. Some days ago he came to know that those boys used to tease his daughter Babli on the way and they were made to understand by his son, but they did not accede to the request of his son and on this matter, on dated 13. 6. 1991 a quarrel took place between his son and Sanjay and Vishnu which was later on patched up. On dated 15th june, 1991 at about 10. 00 PM in the night he was present at his house with his children, that Sanjay and Vishnu came to his house and admitted their mistake. After that they took his son with them on the pretext of showing Video Film to him. When his son did not return home till morning he asked going to the houses of Sanjay and Vishnu accused. They were not found at their houses. When he was returning back public persons told him that one dead body was lying in park and he himself also went in the park and saw that the dead body was of his son. There were many injuries on the person of his son and who was drenched in blood. He suspected the assailants of his son to be Vishnu and Sanjay, who murdered his son with plan. This statement was despatched to the PS for registration of the cse, and on the basis of this a case under section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against accused Vishnu and Sanjay. That SHO also received information through Risal Singh ASI PCR (R75) through wireless message that a dead body was lying in Sanjay Gandhi Park. After that the Investigation Agency was put into motion. The case was invested by the IO/inspector Shri R. C. Singh, SHO PS-Mangolpuri and a charge sheet was filed in the Court. The accused persons have been charged by the learned District Judge vide his separate order dated 24. 1. 1992 under Section 302/34 IPC. Accused Sanjay kumar was also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act, separately, vide order of the same date. This case entirely depends upon circumstantial evidence and no eye-witness saw accused person killing the deceased. "

( 2 ) THE prosecution in this case examined as many as 19 witnesses. PW1 Om parkash did not support the prosecution s case. However, PW2 Ramesh deposes to the effect that the accused persons were known to him as they resided in the same block of Mangolpuri. He also states that the accused persons were not arrested and were not interrogated in his presence. But he deposed to the effect that the police have lifted the blood stained earth from near the body. He also identified the dead body of Sohan in park. He deposed to the recovery of other blood stained articles of the deceased as also empty bottle and one empty dabba. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/a. This witness also states that babu Lal present when the articles were seized. This witness was ultimately cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and