In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for alternative hypotheses of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

BACKGROUND:

2. Present appeals have been filed under Section 415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘ BNSS ’) assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 7^th May, 2025 and 17^th May, 2025 respectively passed by the court of Ld. ASJ (Fast Track Court), South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi whereby the Appellants have been convicted in Sessions Case No. 537/2017 arising out of FIR No. 152/2017 registered at P.S. Dwarka North under Section 302 /201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘ IPC ’).

3. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, they have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. Facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 25^th May, 2017, an information vide DD No. 10A was received regarding an unidentified dead body lying near Orissa Sadan, Sector-16B, Dwarka, on the footpath beside a drain.

5. Upon reaching the spot, the police found the dead body of a male aged about 23–24 years, fair-complexioned, approximately 165 cm tall with a slim build, lying near tree No. 259. Blood was found oozing from the mouth and nose of the deceased and injury marks were noticed on his neck. No visible signs of scuffle were found at the spot. Consequently, FIR No. 152/2017 was registered at PS Dwarka North.

6. On 26^th May, 2017, the deceased was identified by his brother- Arjun/PW-4, who informed the police that a missing report regarding the deceased had already been lodged vide DD No. 36-A at PS Ranhola. He further expressed suspicion against one Pradeep, who resides in the same vicinity, alleging that his wife, Pooja, shared a close association with him.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that upon further interrogation, accused/ Appellant- Pradeep made a subsequent disclosure statement and, pursuant thereto, allegedly got recovered the belt stated to have been used in the commission of the offence from his house. The co-accused, Deepak, was also apprehended and interrogated in the present case, and he too is stated to have made a disclosure statement regarding the commission of the offence. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Deepak allegedly got recovered the Swift car bearing registration No. DL-9CAU-1246, stated to have been used in the commission of the crime.

8. After completion of investigation, police report along with other documents were filed before the concerned court and vide order dated 16^th August, 2017, the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took the cognizance of the case. 9. Vide order dated 22^nd August, 2017, after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

10. Vide order dated 11^th January, 2018, charges were framed against the Appellant and the co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 IPC and 201/34 , to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

11. The prosecution has examined as many as twenty-seven witnesses in order to prove the charge against the accused/Appellants. While believing the testimonies of these witnesses, the ld. Trial Court has discussed them as under:

“10. PW-1 Mr. Ravi Kumar, as per the case of the prosecution, is a witness of last seen eviden