(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5/4/1997 and Order on Sentence dated 8/4/1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 120-B and Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each or to undergo R.I. for one month each in default under Section 302/34 of IPC, and were given identical punishment under Section 120-B of IPC. It was also directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2) On 5th November, 1993, at about 8.50 pm, Police Control Room informed PS Sultan Puri that an unclaimed gunny bag was lying, on the road going to Village Kironi from Sector 20 of Rohini. On receipt of this information, the police officials reached the spot. On opening the gunny bag, the dead body of a young woman was found inside. The hands, legs and neck of the deceased were found tied with a cotton cord. The dead body was identified to be of one Smt.Pushpa, wife of Mukesh and resident of I-98, Krishna Vihar, Delhi. The Post Mortem Report revealed that cause of death was asphyxia consequent to ligature constriction of neck. Five persons, namely, Mukesh Kumar, husband of the deceased, Bobby alias Sanjiv, brother of Mukesh Kumar, Smt.Veerbala, sister of Mukesh and Sanjiv, Chander Prakash, husband of Veerbala and Dharam Prakash, brother of Chander Prakash,were charge-sheeted on the allegations that they hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of deceased Pushpa and after committing her murder pursuant to that criminal conspiracy, they disposed of her body in a gunny bag. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case. One official witness was examined in defence. The trial court while convicting the appellants, acquitted the accused Mukesh and Veerbala.

(3) PW-1 Ram Pal, PW-2 Ram Kishan, PW-3 Yaad Ram PW-9 Rajbala are the material witnesses.

(4) There is no direct witness of the murder of deceased Pushpa and the charge against the appellants was sought to be proved by establishing following circumstances.

(i) Deceased Pushpa was taken by the appellant Sanjiv with him on 5th November, 1993, at about 2.30 pm on the pretext that he being sick she should sweep his room and prepare Khichri for him.

(ii) Deceased Pushpa accompanied by the appellant Sanjiv, went to the shop of one Ram Pal at about 2.30 pm on 5th November, 1993 to buy some articles.

(iii) At about 3.30 pm on 5th November, 1993, Yaad Ram, brother of the deceased, found the appellants Sanjiv, Chander Prakash and Braham Prakash (who has since been acquitted) standing outside the house of Sanjiv and when he went inside, he found Pushpa making tea there.

(iv) Pushpa was strangulated using a white rope and a similar rope was got recovered by the appellant Sanjiv from his house. The motive behind the murder of Pushpa is alleged to be the desire of the appellants to marry Mukesh, husband of the deceased to some other girl, after killing Pushpa. When the case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance from such conclusion of the guilt of the accused is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and they should be of a conclusive nature. The circumstances, taken together must form a chain of evidence, which is so complete that it does not give any reasonable ground to draw a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the offence was committed by no one other than the accused. Circumstance Nos.(i) and (ii)

(5) According to PW-9 Rajbala, mother of the deceased, on 5th November, 1993 at about 2.30/2.45 pm, accused Sanjiv came to the house of Pushpa and took her with him on the pretext that since he was not well, she should sweep the room and prepare Khichri for him. At the time deceased Pushpa left the house, she (the witness) was standing at the door of her house and was told by her that she was going with Sanjiv. She further stated that at