The judgment emphasizes the high threshold for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence and the principle that the prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, granting the benefit of doubt to the accused when the evidence does not meet this standard.

S. Muralidhar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th January 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in SC No.15/1992 arising out of FIR No.330/1991 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 15th February 2003 whereby he was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with payment of fine of Rs.25000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. It should be mentioned at the outset that the Appellant was sent up for trial along with three other co-accused, viz. Suresh Chand, Dulare Singh, and Pawan Kumar, all of whom were acquitted of the aforementioned offence by the same impugned judgment of the trial Court.

3. It also requires to be noticed that during the pendency of the present appeal, the sentence of the Appellant was suspended by an order dated 5th May 2005 passed by this Court.

Charge

4. The charge against the Appellant and the three co-accused was that on the intervening night of 5th/6th October 1991, near the Dr. Verma Farm, Jaunpur, New Delhi, they murdered Sunehari and her daughter Rama thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.

The dead bodies

5. The criminal justice process was activated when DD No.73B was recorded at PS Mehrauli at around 4:10 am on 6th October 1991 to the effect that the dead bodies of two ladies were lying near the Verma Farm at Jaunpur. SI Raj Singh (PW-3) then forwarded this report to SI Raghunath Singh (PW-10) who in turn proceeded to the spot with ASI Ram Kumar and Ct. Umar Mohammad.

6. Upon reaching there, PW-10 met Mohar Singh (PW-6) who was the chowkidar of the Dr. Verma Farm House. His statement (Ex.PW/6/A) was recorded on the basis of which a rukka (Ex.PW-10/A) was prepared and sent to the PS through Ct. Hans Raj (PW-8) for registration of the FIR. In the meanwhile, senior police officials reached there. A rough site plan of the spot (Ex.PW-10/B) was prepared on the instructions of PW-6.

7. PW-6 also identified the dead bodies of the two deceased. He told PW-10 that Sunehari was the mother-in-law of the Appellant and that Rama was his wife. Inquest proceedings were conducted by PW-10. He lifted the blood stained stones, blood stained earth from two places, and blood stained broken glass bangles from the scene of incident. From the open land of the Dr. Verma Farm House, PW-10 lifted a blue v-shaped Hawaii chappal, a broken ballpoint pen having blood stains on it, blood stained earth, one broken bulb and its glass pieces. Parcels were made of these articles which were then sealed.

Arrests, disclosures and recoveries

8. On 8th October 1991, PW-10 along with SI Raj Singh (PW-3) and Station House Officer Inspector Bhim Singh (PW-11) arrested both the present Appellant and his brother Suresh, on the pointing out of PW-6 from their own house where they were living as tenants. Both of their disclosure statements were recorded. Allegedly, PW-10 recovered from Suresh a kurta and a pyjama and took them into possession.

9. On 9th October 1991, accused Dulare was arrested from Beena Bagh, New Delhi by the Inspector Bhim Singh (PW-11) in the presence of PW-10. Dulare (A-3) got recovered one pair of trousers and one shirt which were taken into possession. On 12th October 1991, accused Pawan Kumar was arrested from his house at Village Chhawla. He too got recovered a kurta and a pyjama which were taken into possession.

10. The post mortem examinations of both deceased confirmed that their deaths were due to strangulation and were homicidal. Dr. G. Bomgen (PW-12) who conducted the post mortem examination and prepared the post mortem report confirmed this. There was hardly any cross-examination of PW-12.

Trial

11. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and charges as indicated hereinbefore were framed against the Appellant and the three co-accused 13 witnesses were examined for the prosecution. Relevant to the