The prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, including motive, presence at the crime scene, and weapon recovery, justifying the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J. This appeal assails the judgment dated 19th May, 2016 convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and order on sentence dated 19th May, 2016 sentencing the appellant to (i) rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.30,000/- (simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine); and (ii) rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and a fine of Rs.20,000/- (simple imprisonment for a period of three months in default of payment of fine). All sentences to run concurrently.

The Incident:

2. Case of the prosecution was that on 16.03.2014 at about 02:45 AM, Harbansh Lal (the complainant) was sleeping in his jhuggi when he heard voice of his neighbour Suresh Tanwar that there was a fire on the first floor of his house No.1-2, LSC, DDA Market, Mangolpuri, Delhi (`the said property'). The complainant rushed to the first floor of the said house but the main gate was locked, therefore they broke open the lock and used water to extinguish the fire. They saw that shoe cartons kept in the said room were burning and a boy in burnt condition with throat slit and a half-burnt blanket over him lying amidst the cartons.

3. In the meantime, owner of the factory that was operating from the said property viz. Tota Ram also reached the spot and identified the dead body of the boy as Rizwan, his factory employee. In the meantime, someone made a call to the PCR, the police and the fire brigade reached the spot and an FIR was registered subsequently. On 20th March, 2014, the appellant was arrested from Mangolpuri Railway Station, Delhi and on 21st March, 2014 the weapon of offence i.e. one paper cutter and a key was recovered at the behest of the appellant from inside Indra Park, J-Block.

4. Charges were framed under Section 302 & 201 IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 27 witnesses, statement of appellant u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') was recorded and one defence witness was examined.

Submissions by the appellants:

5. The appellant contended through the appeal and arguments on behalf by the learned counsel that the impugned judgment and order was bad in law and facts and liable to be set aside. There was no eye witness to the crime and the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The recovery of the weapon, allegedly found at the instance of the appellant was from the vicinity and from an open area. Even the evidence of last seen of PW-23 Tota Ram, the factory owner was not specific as regards time but had merely stated that when he left the factory in the evening, both appellant and deceased were in the factory. There was a discrepancy in the testimony regarding place of occurrence since the site plan mentioned it was first floor while the witness PW-23 said that it was the second floor. It was stated by DW1, the mother of the appellant that since her husband and father of appellant had passed away the day before, the appellant had come to the village. PW19, father-in-law of the appellant and DW-1, mother of the appellant, both stated that the appellant suspected an illicit relationship between his wife PW-18 and the deceased and they used to quarrel about it often. Therefore, the appellant had been falsely implicated for the crime.

Submissions by the Prosecution:

6. Countering the contentions of the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that as per testimony of PW-23, the factory owner, t