The judgment establishes the importance of ensuring that the inference drawn from circumstantial evidence is the only logical conclusion possible and rules out the possibility of innocence.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The Appellant has been convicted for the offence of having kidnapped and murdered Mukesh, aged 6 years, as per the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.1998. Vide order on sentence dated 27.10.1999, for the offence of murder, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence of kidnapping has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.

2. The learned trial judge has sustained the conviction on the findings returned that 2 incriminating circumstances have been proved by the prosecution and that the two are sufficient wherefrom the guilt of the Appellant can be inferred. The first circumstance held established is that the deceased and the Appellant were last seen together in the company of each other at 10 PM on 12.10.1997, a fact proved through the testimony of Bal Kishan PW-4 and that nobody saw young Mukesh thereafter. The second incriminating circumstance held to be established is, the dead body of Mukesh being recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the Appellant; followed by the Appellant leading the police to a dirty water drain (ganda nala) and pointing out the spot and getting the dead body recovered. This, as per the learned trial judge is a circumstance established and proved through the testimony of Hari Mistri PW-3, Rewati Raman PW-5, Giri Raj PW-8, SI Shri Kishan PW-11, Virender Sherawat PW-13 and Insp. Ashwani Kumar PW-14.

3. Before analysing the evidence relied upon by the learned trial judge and analysing the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial judge, we would highlight that it is the duty of a judge adjudicating an offence, where the punishment may attract the highest sentence i.e. that of death, to painstakingly, with a hawks eye, minutely see each and every fact established and the attendant circumstance enwombing the facts, before drawing any conclusion. We are noticing a large number of decisions in which facts favourable to the accused or attendant circumstances favourable to the accused are being blatantly ignored, resulting in wrong and incorrect or imperfect conclusions being drawn. We would only highlight that with respect to evidence which is circumstantial in nature, while drawing an inference, it has to be ensured that the inference drawn is the only inference possible and is the logical culmination arrived at with reference to the proved facts and not by the process of a two stage inference. It is impermissible to take two facts and there from draw an inference and use the inference to draw a further inference.

4. As deposed to by Hari Mistri PW-3, the father of Mukesh, his son, the deceased, was missing since 9:00 PM on 12.10.1997 and since he could not be located he had lodged a missing person's complaint the next day and since he suspected the Appellant of having kidnapped his son as he had received information that his son was seen in the company of the Appellant, he made the complaint Ex.PW-11/A on basis whereof the FIR Ex.PW-2/B was registered at 8:00 PM on 14.10.1997. As deposed to by SI Shri Kishan PW-11, he had scribed Ex.PW-11/A and had got the FIR registered. As further deposed to by SI Shri Kishan when he was still in the company of Hari Mistri, a boy came there and told that some boys were beating another person in Harijan Basti and those persons were saying "Nanhi jaan ko kyon gayab kar diya' and thus he and Hari Mistri along with Ct. Devender reached the place where the boys were beating a boy. As further deposed to by SI Shri Kishan he interrogated the boy being beaten i.e. the Appellant and recorded his statement Ex.PW-8/B in which it stands recorded that the Appellant had, after manually strangulating Mukesh, thrown the dead body in an open drain (gandanala) near Harijan Basti. Thereafter, as deposed to by SI Shri Kishan, Appellant pointed to a spot in the ganda nala wherefrom dead body of Mukesh was recovered.

5. Relevant would it be to note that Hari Mistri PW-3 also deposed on sim