The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 03.09.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.04/2014 arising out of FIR No.208/2009 PS S.P. Badli by which Naveen (A-1) under Sections 304 Part-I/201 IPC and Sunita (A-2) under Section 201 IPC were held guilty, they have filed the instant appeals. By an order dated 06.09.2014, A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 304 Part-I IPC and RI for three years with fine Rs.2,000/- under Section 201 IPC; A-2 was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine Rs.2,000/- under Section 201 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 18.08.2009 at Kale Ka Makan, Mahaveer Park, Gali No.1, Bahadurgarh Jhajjar, A-1 inflicted injuries to Anil Kumar and committed his murder. Subsequently, A-1 and A-2 in furtherance of common intention removed victim’s body from the spot and threw it near Bawana canal, behind DTC Depot, Sector 18 Rohini with an intention to cause disappearance of the evidence and to screen themselves from legal punishment.

3. On 20.08.2009 at about 06.55 a.m. PW-8 (Jai Bhagwan) noticed a dead body lying on the banks of Bawana canal in a jute bag. He made call at 100; PCR van reached. On receipt of DD No.5A (Ex.PW-13/A) SI Ashok Kumar along with Const. Joginder reached the spot. Crime team was called; photographs were taken. On search of the body, one black colour purse was recovered containing driving licence and RC in the name of Anil Kumar. PW-7 (Vinod Kumar) identified it to be the body of his brother Anil Kumar. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. A-1 and A-2 were arrested vide arrest memos (Ex.PW-27/B & Ex.PW-27/A). Their disclosure statements (Ex.PW-27/F and Ex.PW-27/E) were recorded. Pursuant to the disclosure statements, certain recoveries were effected. Test Identification Proceedings were conducted for identification of the gold ring recovered at A-2’s instance. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined thirty-four witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The appellants examined DW-1 (Karambir) in defence. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. The learned Trial Court has noted various citations to discuss legal position regarding the standard of proof and the tests which the circumstantial evidence must satisfy. Needless to say, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

6. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution had charged A-1 for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. It was neither the case of the prosecution nor that of A-1 that Anil Kumar was murdered by A-1 under grave and sudden provocation depriving him of the power of control as he had seen the victim in a compromising position with his mother A-2 on the nigh