The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing all links in the chain of circumstantial evidence and the requirement to exclude all other hypotheses. It also highlights the limitations of relying on disclosure statements made in police custody and the need to establish exclusive possession in cases of circumstantial evidence.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. The appellant Raj Kumar has been convicted vide the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2010 for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Apart from the appellant, two other persons had also been apprehended and tried; both the said persons namely Sanjay Pratap and Adesh being juveniles were challenged before the said Court.

2. Vide order on sentence dated 22.04.2010, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months. For the offence under Section 201 of the IPC he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one month.

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforenoted judgment.

4. The version of the prosecution is that on 13.04.2007 pursuant to DD No. 4 (Ex.PW-15/A), Police Post Okhla was informed about missing of a person namely of Rajesh @ Tuntun. This DD had been recorded on a complaint made by his brother Harish Singh @ Haresh (PW-1). His statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded wherein he disclosed that he had suspicion upon the appellant Raj Kumar @ Raju. The appellant was arrested on 14.04.2007. He made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-19/C). Pursuant to this disclosure statement he got recovered the dead body of the victim from a portion of his house (E-86) which was adjacent and adjoining to the house of the deceased. The motive of the crime as per the prosecution was that the deceased had illicit relations with the bhabhi (Urmila) of the accused which had instigated him to commit this murder.

5. The accused was charge-sheeted. Charges under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC were framed against him. Prosecution in support of its case had examined 20 witnesses.

6. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the appellant had pleaded innocence. His submission being that he had been falsely implicated by the prosecution; he has no connection with the murder.

7. No evidence was led in defence.

8. The Trial Court had believed the version set up by the prosecution and convicted the accused. The Trial Judge had noted that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the three circumstances pleaded had been proved by the prosecution against the appellant forming a complete chain and which called for his conviction for the offence of murder. The said circumstances relied upon by the Trial Judge were as under:-

(i) last seen evidence which was sought to be proved through the version of PW-1, the complainant and the brother of the victim.

(ii) recovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused which dead body was recovered from the gallery of the house of the accused and which had been dug out by two labourers having been buried 1- 1-½ feet below the earth. This dead body had been identified by both PW-1 and PW-2.

(iii) motive for the same was depicted in the disclosure statement of the accused and in the version of PW-7 (a neighbor) who had stated that in a document signed by the accused it was noted that Urmila bhabhi had illicit relations with the deceased which was the reason for the accused to have committed the murder of the deceased.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments assailing each of the aforenoted circumstances. Her submission is that the last seen evidence has been totally demolished in view of the fact that PW-1 in his statement on oath in Court has not whispered a word about his brother having been last seen in the company of the accused; the trial Judge relying upon the circumstance of last seen has committed an illegality. The recovery is demolished in view of the version of PW-7 (neighbour and friend) wherein in his cross-examination he has clearly explained that the accused was arrested on 13.04.2007 at about 07:30-08:00 PM; at about 11:00- 11:30 PM he had go