The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence, including the accused's relationship with the deceased, the purchase of items used to dispose of the body, and the recovery of incriminating items, can unerringly point to the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

S. Muralidhar, J.:

1. These are the two appeals by Geeta and Rakesh, Accused Nos.1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2), challenging the impugned judgment dated 20th December 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, South-West District, Dwarka, New Delhi (‘ASJ’) convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) as well as the order of sentence dated 23rd December 2014 sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for three months. In addition, the Appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for one year for the offence under section 201/34 IPC along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo SI for one month.

2. The trial Court held that since there was no evidence on record that the accused persons conspired with each other or co-accused Bhagwan Singh to commit the murder of the deceased, Inderjeet, they stood acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 was having an affair with the deceased, Inderjeet. On the date of the incident, i.e. 6th January 2013, she called the deceased on his mobile phone from a Public Call Office (‘PCO’) operated by Naresh (PW-5) between 3 and 3.30 pm. According to the prosecution, since A-1 suspected that the deceased was having ‘an evil eye’ on her daughter, A-1 and her brother Rakesh (A-2) and one Bhagwan Singh (absconding accused) made a plan to eliminate Inderjeet at A-1’s residence at E-111, Om Vihar, Phase-V, Uttam Nagar. The deceased was killed by a sharp-edged weapon. His dead body was thereafter wrapped in a jute sack, put in a suitcase, wrapped in a quilt and left on a rehri in Dwarka.

4. The deceased, who was married and had children, was using two mobile phones bearing Nos. 9211414070 and 9953211720. The deceased stayed with his two brothers Satender Kumar (PW-17) and Devender Kumar (PW-21). PW-17 deposed that A-1 was having an illicit relationship with the deceased. When A-1 learnt about PW-17 and PW-21 having tried to reason with the deceased about the affair, A-1 - who was staying in a rental accommodation close to the house of the deceased - shifted to another rented accommodation at Om Vihar.

5. On the date of incident, when the deceased did not come back to the house till 6 pm and was also not answering calls on his mobile phones, PW-17 and PW-21 began searching for him. The next morning, they lodged a missing person report with the police. While filing said report, they learnt that a dead body had been found in the jurisdiction of PS Bindapur. They then went to DDU Hospital and identified the dead body of the deceased.

6. PW-17 then took the police officials to the house of the A-1 at Om Vihar where he identified A-1. Thereafter, A-1 was arrested. According to PW-17, A-1 disclosed the names of her two accomplices, i.e. Rakesh (A-2) and Bhagwan Singh (absconding). According to PW-17, A-1 further disclosed that after committing the murder, A-2 and co-accused Bhagwan Das had taken the dead body on a motor cycle and left it on a rehri at the JJ Colony, Sector-3, Dwarka. She further disclosed that the bed sheet and the mattress on which the deceased was murdered had been burnt by them in a nearby vacant plot.

7. During his cross-examination, PW-17 disclosed that he came to know of the residence of A-1 through a friend of the deceased known as Lucky. He further disclosed that the deceased had told them that A-1 was making threatening calls to him. However, the deceased did not disclose why he was being threatened by A-1. PW-17 stated that the deceased was married to Reena and they had three children. All of them resided with PW-17 and PW-21.

8. The other brother, Devender Kumar (PW-21), deposed more or less on the same lines as PW-17. Neither of them was seriously challenged by the defence in their