S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The present appeals preferred, by the accused challenge a common judgment dated 08.05.2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi in S.C. No.90/2011. By the impugned judgment, the appellants (hereafter referred to as “Naveen” and “Rekha”) were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 201 IPC. Naveen was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, besides other prison terms, fine and default sentences.

2. The deceased, Rekha's husband Vinod was repeatedly stabbed in the early morning of 23.03.2011. He was attacked by two men who had muffled their faces - when he was walking in the morning, in the vicinity of his neighbourhood. The police were alerted about this incident- as were the members of his family. Vinod was rushed to the hospital. He soon succumbed to his injuries. The incident remained a blind murder for some time since the police were clueless regarding the identity and whereabouts of the attackers. Claiming to have achieved a breakthrough, on the basis of the statements of Vinod’s father, i.e. Vijay Singh, PW-6, who suspected his daughter-in-law’s involvement in the killing, the police questioned her. The statements made by her in the course of questioning, led to her arrest and subsequent recovery of a burnt cell phone. Thereafter, Naveen too was arrested. Likewise, Mandeep, the third accused, (who was acquitted of all charges by the impugned judgment) was arrested. In the course of investigation, besides recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC, the police also seized articles based upon the admissions made by the accused. These included a burnt Samsung mobile phone at the behest of accused Rekha; a knife at the behest of Naveen. The police also obtained the mobile phone records of three mobile phone connections- all concededly owned by Naveen. The police filed a Final Report charging the accused for the offences they were ultimately tried for. Upon framing of charges by the Court, the accused pleaded innocence and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution, to support its allegations, relied upon depositions of 18 witnesses. Besides, documents such as the Crime Team report, call details supported by certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872; the Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) of Vinod; the Post Mortem Report (Ex.BW-7/A), Seizure memos, Personal Search Memos etc were also placed on record, and relied on.

3. The Trial Court, by its impugned judgment, held that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution during the trial proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants were guilty of the offences charged. A reading of the Trial Court’s impugned judgment would reveal that its findings are founded largely upon the testimonies of PW-6 - Vijay Singh (deceased Vinod’s father); PW-13 – Anjali (Rekha’s friend and neighbour); the statements of police witnesses (PW-1, PW-14 and PW-18) who testified about the recovery of articles at the behest of Naveen and Rekha, and the mobile phone records. It is undisputed that Naveen knew Rekha because he used to teach her children (the daughter and a younger son). Equally, both the accused did not deny that one mobile phone (bearing no.9268001098) had been given by Naveen to Rekha. That cellphone connection was used by Rekha to routinely talk to him. The Trial Court accepted the prosecution’s allegations that in concert and unbeknown to anyone else, Rekha and Naveen used to communicate with each other through another phone number – 9289696849 and that even though the SIM card in respect of this connection was not recovered, the burnt mobile phone was recovered at the behest of Rekha's statements. The Trial Court was of the opinion that these circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused had a relationsh