The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, when fully established and consistent with the guilt of the accused, can lead to a conviction.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 16.7.2009 and the order on sentence dated 31.7.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default of fine, simple imprisonment for another period of three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

2. The appellant was married to one Ms. Madhu; out of the wedlock four children were born.

3. The version of the prosecution as noticed by the trial court is that on 26.8.2006 at around 7:28 a.m. an information was received at the Police Station Ashok Vihar vide DD Nos.10A and 11A about the recovery of a dead body of one lady lying in Jhuggi No.F-356, Jailerwalan Bagh, Delhi. The head of deceased Madhu was found crushed and one blood-stained stone was lying on the table nearby when Inspector S.K. Sharma along with ASI Balwan reached the spot. Deepak Kumar, son of the deceased was present at the spot, who informed the police that his father had killed his mother. Statement of Deepak Kumar was recorded by Inspector S.K. Sharma. Brother of the deceased and one daughter of the deceased, Poonam, were also present at the spot. After preparation of the Rukka, FIR was got registered, crime team was called; spot was inspected; photographs were taken; a site plan was prepared and bloodstained sheet, stone and mat below the dead body along with blood samples were seized from the spot by the I.O. Photograph of the deceased with one Sanjay was also seized from the spot. The dead body was got identified by children of the deceased, namely, Deepak Kumar and Poonam.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the search for the appellant was started, the police was informed by the brother of the deceased, Prakash that accused Suresh was sitting near mazaar Jailerwalan Bagh, Delhi, consequently the accused was apprehended at the instance of Prakash; and his disclosure statement was recorded. The accused informed that he had hidden his blood stained clothes under the Charpai at the roof of his Jhuggi, the clothes were recovered at his instance and seized by the police. The accused was also got medically examined. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 28.8.2006. The weapon of offence i.e. stone was also produced before the doctor; the exhibits were sent to the FSL.

5. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is erroneous, contrary to the facts of the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence and material on record. It is also the case of the appellant that the story of the prosecution is false, fictitious and fabricated and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also the case of the appellant that the judgment is based on conjectures, surmises and assumptions and not supported from the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. It is strongly urged before this court that the trial court has wrongly placed reliance on the evidence of PW-1, Deepak Kumar, whereas both Deepak Kumar and the appellant were sleeping on the roof of the Jhuggi and Deepak Kumar was not an eye-witness. It is also submitted before this court that as per the evidence of Deepak Kumar, after he discovered that his mother had been brutally murdered, he informed his father, who was sleeping on the roof top and in case the appellant had committed the murder, he would have run away from the spot and not come and slept on the roof. Counsel further submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate that Poonam, daughter of the deceased was sleeping in the same Jhuggi on the bed and she did not hear any noise when the deceased had been murdered. It is further submitted that when the information was passed to the Police, the appellant was not named as