The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

1. This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the judgment dated 7th August 2010 passed by the learned Additional & Sessions Judge VI, Rohini Courts, Delhi, thereby acquitting the accused person of the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as culled out from the charge sheet is that on 28th December 2002 on receipt of DD No.19B, ASI Azad Mohd. alongwith constable Tej Singh reached the spot situated at 100 ft wide road at Sector 21-22, Rohini, Delhi, where he found a dead body of a male aged about 45 years lying inside a pit by the side of the road. One Kailash Chand reached there and identified the dead body as that of his brother-in-law namely Nanak Chand. The Police recorded his statement to the effect that the deceased– Nanak Chand was a resident of F-945, Mangolpuri, Delhi, having a ration shop in E-Block, Mangolpuri and was missing since 27th December 2012 from 4 p.m.. Kailash Chand further stated that a missing report to that effect was lodged at about 10 a.m. at Police Station Mangolpuri on 28th December 2002 and based on this statement an FIR concerning the said incident was registered. The investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector Sushil Kumar who got prepared the site plan without sketch, got the spot photographed, summoned the crime team at the spot, seized the exhibits from the spot and later got conducted the post mortem of the dead body at SJM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 29th December 2012, accused Taj Mohd. was arrested in the case, who made a disclosure statement that as he owed some money to the deceased and the deceased was demanding back that money again and again from him, therefore, with a view to get rid of the deceased itself, he alongwith his associate – Prabhu hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased. He further stated in his disclosure statement that when on 27th December 2002 he alongwith his associate – Prabhu reached at the Ration Office around 4.30 PM and met the deceased - Nanak Chand alongwith his son Rohit, they took the said Nanak Chand alongwith them on a scooter on the pretext that they would return his money back. He further stated that the son of the deceased Rohit was sent back to his house and he alongwith the deceased and the associate – Prabhu after consuming liquor at Sector 21, Rohini reached at 100 ft road, Sector 21-22, Rohini, where, when the deceased got the scooter stopped for a natural call, both of them pushed the deceased while he was urinating near a pit by the side of the road. He further stated that after pushing the deceased in the pit, he caught hold of the feet of the deceased and his associate – Prabhu took out a sharp razor and gave a blow on the neck of the deceased and thereafter he took the said razor from his associate – Prabhu and also gave a blow on the neck of the deceased, due to which Nanak Chand died and thereafter both of them left that place on scooter and after about half a kilometer away, accused Prabhu threw the shaving razor at kacha place by the side of the road. As per the prosecution, the accused got the razor recovered and also got his associate – Prabhu arrested. It is further the case of the prosecution that the said shaving razor was shown to the Doctor who conducted the autopsy and the said doctor gave a subsequent opinion with regard to the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased having been caused by the said shaving razor. The Appellant sent the exhibits to the FSL and also recorded the statement of witnesses. Police had also seized the documents which were in the handwriting of the deceased and the same were sent to FSL for the opinion of the handwriting expert. The co-accused Prabhu had also surrendered before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate who made a disclosure statement and pointed out the place where the weapon of offence was