The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries, FSL reports, and expert opinions, to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The appellants who have been convicted for murder of Mohd. Shahid and destruction of evidence on the basis of circumstantial evidence assail the common impugned judgment dated February 12, 2014 and the order on sentence dated February 14, 2014 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and a sentence of simple imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-each in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half years for offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. The appellants have also been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/-each to the heirs of the deceased Mohd.Shahid and in default of payment of compensation to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants Sumit and Sonu assail the judgment on the ground that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and the appellants have not been properly identified in the Court. There is no evidence to connect these two appellants with the offence committed. Admittedly, even as per the prosecution case the appellants had no role in disposing of the dead body and hence their conviction under Section 201/34 IPC is unwarranted. Further, no FSL report has been sought to show that the blood stained soil was recovered from the spot where allegedly the deceased was beaten to death. PW-26 SI Kamlesh Kumar witness to the seizures has stated that he was on leave on the said date and hence the seizures have not been proved. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate received the copy of the FIR belatedly and hence there is non-compliance under Section 157 Cr.P.C. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the seized articles were kept safely in the malkhana and were not tampered with.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Saurabh assails on the ground that as per the post-mortem report undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased and thus the version that the appellants were last seen with the deceased at 7.30 pm does not sound to reason, as the deceased would not have had dinner by then. The time gap does not rule out the hypothesis that someone else was the assailant. The phone calls have not been proved in accordance with law. Though it is the case of prosecution that the identity of the dead body was not known and was revealed from finger prints pursuant to which Mohd.Sajid and Mohd.Zahid PW-3 and PW-5 respectively, the brothers of the deceased, were informed who identified the dead body, however their names are mentioned in the death report prepared on June 18, 2010 i.e. the date of recovery of the dead body vide Ex.PW-20/B. There is no material to connect the appellant with the alleged offence and hence he be acquitted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Sushil Kumar assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the employer who could have deposed that Sushil and Saurabh were working with him has not been brought in the witness box. The place of arrest and the manner of arrest have not been put to the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hence cannot be used as incriminating evidence. There is no overt act attributed to the appellant and hence he be acquitted.

5. The investigation in the case was set in motion on receipt of DD No. 6-B at 6.08 AM received at PS Bhalswa Dairy on June 18, 2010 informing that one dead body was lying near jheel, Bypass Ring Road near Shamshan Ghat. SI Kamlesh Kumar PW-26 reached the spot where he found dead body of one young man with ligature mark on the neck lying there. The body also had deep injury marks beneath the knees and on the arms and lips. Some blood was found in the naali near the boundary wall of golf course. Since no identification mark of the body was available and no witness was available, on the basis of inspection of the dead body FIR under Section 302/201 IPC was registered. T