The prosecution's burden to prove the appellants' possession of the deceased's personal items and involvement in the murder, and the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. Vijay Kumar @ Monti and Vijay Kumar @ Mannu (hereinafter referred to as ‘Monti’ and ‘Mannu’) challenge the judgment dated February 25, 2013 convicting them for offence punishable under Sections 364A/34 IPC, 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated February 28, 2013 directing them to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life for offences punishable under Sections 364A/34 IPC and 302/34 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for five years on each count. For offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC they have been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1½ year.

2. Monti and Mannu assail the judgment on the ground that it is highly doubtful that the place of occurrence was B-19, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. The Crime Team which visited the room at Dilshad Colony on October 22, 2006 found nothing incriminating however, two days later the Investigating Officer allegedly found blood in the said room. Though it is stated that Inspector Azad Singh took the photographs showing the blood present in the room at Dilshad Colony however, no photographs were produced. The rent deed Ex.PW-8/A relied upon by the prosecution to show that the premises was rented out to Mannu is not signed by him and thus not incriminating towards him. There is no proper identification that the phone recovered from Mannu belonged to the deceased. Even as per the prosecution case the phone was in the name of one Satish Kumar Bansal and thus not connected with the deceased. It is highly unlikely that Monti would retain his blood stained jacket and Mannu will retain part of the broken knife at his house. The appellants have been falsely implicated in a blind murder case and thus they be acquitted.

3. No defence evidence has been led by Mannu however, Monti has examined his father as DW1 who stated that on October 21, 2006 on the day of festival of Diwali after pooja at about 11.00/11.15 PM police officials knocked their door and took away his son Vijay @ Monti forcibly who was sleeping in the house. They also took away one motorcycle from the courtyard of their house. On the next day the police officials had brought Monti to the house from Police Station Mangolpuri and asked him to provide warm clothes for Monti as he was not wearing warm clothes to which he told the police officials that the weather was not so cold and why they were asking for the jacket. On the request of police officials he handed over a jacket of his son to them and after three months he got to know that the jacket was planted on his son Vijay @ Monti. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Monti pleads false implication and that no offence was committed by him, he had no concern with the present case and all recoveries were falsely shown on him. Mannu also pleaded false implication and that recoveries were falsely shown on him.

4. The learned Trial Court held that the following circumstances were proved against Monti and Mannu by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt which complete the chain of evidence:

“i. that from the depositions of PW1 Jaswant Singh, PW2 Sanjay Kumar and PW3 Bhura Singh, it has been proved that Anil had left his house on 19/10/2006 for his sister’s house at Mangol Puri and stayed there in the night. On the next day, he received phone call on his mobile phone and left his sister’s house at about 10 a.m. From the call details of mobile phone of Anil Ex.PW16/F, it has also been proved that he remained in contact of accused Vijay @ Monti on mobile phone.

ii. that accused Anil had also told to PW1 Jaswant Singh in his house in the morning of 20/10/2006 about receiving a call from accused Vijay @ Mannu, who was giving a party on the eve of purchase of new motorcycle.

iii. that accused Vijay @ Monti made ransom calls on the mobile phone of PW3 Bhur