The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Mukta Gupta, J.:--

1. Shahnaz is convicted for the offence of murder of Rakesh Gupta and directed to undergo imprisonment for life for the same.

2. Shahnaz assails the impugned judgment of conviction dated November 25, 2013 on the ground that the present is a case of no evidence against her. Rahul Gupta, who deposed as an eye-witness, has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court and rightly so. There is no direct evidence and even the circumstantial evidence so sought to be proved by the prosecution does not form a complete chain so as to rule out the hypothesis of the innocence of Shahnaz. There is no evidence on record that Rakesh Gupta was last seen with Shahnaz or that she inflicted injuries to him and thereafter dumped the body in the drain from where the dead body was recovered. Moreover, the dead body recovered could not have been identified to be that of Rakesh Gupta as it was in a highly decomposed condition. Even the teeth which were taken out for the DNA analysis could not give the result. The identification of the dead body being highly doubtful, the conviction of Shahnaz as above is vitiated. The recovery of the wicket for playing cricket has also been planted and does not connect with the offence as no blood was found thereon.

3. In her defence Shahnaz produced Dharampal, DW-1. Shahnaz pleaded false implication and in her explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C stated:

“I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. Deceased Rakesh Gupta was my employee and he has gone somewhere after settling his account. I do not know where he had gone.”

4. The learned Trial Court held that the following chain of circumstantial evidence has been proved against Shahnaz and thus convicted her granting the benefit of doubt to the co-accused Shakil @ Bhura and Shahid @ Kalu:

“i. That accused Shahnaz and victim were residing as husband and wife in H. No. G6/97 Sector 15 Rohini,

ii. That the said house was taken on rent by the victim Rakesh Gupta by the name Ajay and accused Shahnaz was residing in the said house as his wife with the name of Anita,

iii. From the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 it is proved that accused Shahnaz has told to them that the victim left the house after quarrelling with her,

iv. The complaint ExPW-24/Q given by the accused Shahnaz proved that she was residing at H. No. G6/97 sector 15-Rohini on 18.10.10 when she had given the said complaint on the basis of which DD No. 34A ExPW-20/A was recorded hence she falsely denied in her statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C that she was not residing at the flat No. G6/97 sector 15 Rohini.

v. The admission of accused Shahnaz in complaint ExPW-24/Q that victim left the house on 05.10.2010.

vi. The failure of accused to explain where victim has gone from her house on 05.10.2010 and thereafter no body seen him alive though she was the last person who seen victim alive,

vii. The false statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C that accused was her employee though he was residing with her as her husband.

viii. Failure of victim to report to police about missing of victim till 18.10.2010 though she was living with him as his wife and even thereafter lodging complaint under pressure of victim brother,

ix. The testimony of PW-22 proved that she made the confessional statement EXPW-22/F in which she confessed that she had thrown the dead body in the gutter/septic tank of Sulabh Shochalaya Sector-26, Rohini.

x. Recovery of dead body at her instance from the aforesaid place in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Shahnaz EXPW-22/F.

xi. The identification of dead body by PW-3 and PW-5 as of victim Rakesh Gupta.

xii. The opinion of PW-4 that the time since death is approximately 2 to 3 months prior to postmortem which corroborate with the timing of missing of victim Rakesh.

xiii. The cause of death as is as per the opinion of PW4 is cranio cerebral injury as a result of blunt force impact over head and fracture of leg bone. Hence death of victim was homicidal.”

5. Rahul Gupta, PW-5, brother of