The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of reliable evidence and inculpatory circumstances to establish an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. based on circumstantial evidence.

1. - The Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, by his judgment dated 24-8-1974 convicted the appellants of the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to each of them to imprisonment for life for having murdered one young Lad by name Aziz son of Kalekhan, who was found missing from the evening of 30-11-1973

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Nirbhay Singh (PW 13) happened to go towards the temple on the hillock and found the dead body lying prostrate. He reported the matter to his father-in-law Deepsingh (PW 12) Deepsingh in turn informed Kalekhan that a dead body is lying inside the dilapidated temple, so he may go and find out whether it is of his son. There upon Kalekhan (PW 3) went to the temple and found that the dead body is of his son Aziz. He came back to his village Vinota and raised shrieks and told the villagers about the dead body of his son. Thereupon the villagers went to the temple. The matter was also brought to the notice of the Sarpanch Sagarmal (PW 10). Thereupon Sagarmal asked the villagers to inform the Police Hazarimal (PW 1) went to the Police Station, Nimbahera and lodged the written report Ex. P. 1. Thereupon case Under Section 302, IPC, was registered and a formal first information report (Fx. P/11) was drawn by the S.H.O. Bhupendra Singh (PW 14). Bhupendra Singh commenced the investigation. He visited the spot, prepared the site plan (Ex P/3) and site notes (Ex P/2), Panchnama Lash (Ex. P/4) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased vide memo Ex. P/6. On 4-12-1973 both the accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex. P 9 and Ex. P 10. On the information of the accused Faiyaz (Ex. P 12) his blood stained shirt, pant and pair of shoes were recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P 5. All these blood stained articles were packed and sealed. On the information of the accused Salam (Ex. P 3) blood stained knife was recovered vide memo Ex. P 7. Knife was also packed and sealed. All these articles were sent for chemical examination and on chemical and Serological examinations it was found that all these articles were stained with human blood. Investigation was conducted from the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was present against the appellants and the appellants were committed for trial by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera, to the court of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The Sessions Judge charged the accused with the offence Under Section 302, IPC, as well as Under Section 302/34 IPC. The accused persons, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses. In their statements, the accused persons denied the entire prosecution case and led no evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of certain circumstances, which have been found to be proved, convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as aforesaid. The learned Sessions Judge held that the following circumstances are proved against the accused persons:

(1) The accused having been seen last with the deceased as stated by Jamila and proceeding towards the dilapidated temple

(2) Jamila is corroborated by PW 9 Bhanwari

(3) Discovery of the weapon with which the offence was committed; in consequence of the information supplied by the accused;

(4) Recovery of the blood stained clothes of Faiyaz immediately after the preparation of memo of dead body of deceased;

(5) The recovery of shoe the like of which appeared on the way near the temple and compared by investigating officer Shri Bhupendra Singh; and while dealing with the evidence, this circumstance was also found proved that the accused Faiyaz had asked PW 7 Goga and PW 8 Bheru Singh that they may render assistance to him in beating Aziz Khan. The evidence of both these witnesses has been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, verdict of conviction was recorded b