The judgment underscores the stringent requirements for proving guilt based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for conclusive and consistent evidence, a clear motive, and a cautious approach in evaluating circumstantial evidence.

1. - The appellant was the accused in session's case No. 21 of 1992 on the file of special Judge, dacoity affected area, Bharatpur. He was found guilty under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further under two years rigorous imprisonment) and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment) for the offence Under section 201 of the IPC with direction that the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action for tiling the appeal has been resorted to.

3. Brief facts are

(i) That on 9.3.1991 one Nawab Singh, Sarpanch of village, Panchayat, Dudawali instituted a written report Ex.P. 16 at Police Station Nagar, District, Bharatpur, stating therein that in the well belonging to one Ramswaroop, a dead body was lying. The village children working at the nearby fields communicated this information on 8.3.91. The villagers assembled at the well at it was decided by them to report the matter to police.

(ii) This information bearing FIR No. 1/91 came to be registered by police station, Nagar.

(ii) The S.H.O., Police Station, Nagar reached at the well for making enquiry and got retrieved the dead body from the well. It was seen after retrieving the dead body that its head and legs were missing. It was further brought out that on the hand of the deceased some words Adi Ram Sharma' or Yadi Ram Sharma were embossed. The case Under section 302 read with Section 201 IPC was registered and FIR No. 19/91 was chalked out and investigation commenced.

(iv) On 10.3.91 the police recovered two legs of the deceased from the same well. On 14.3.91 the appellant was arrested and on the basis of information supplied by him Under section 27 of the Evidence Act, head of the deceased was recovered from a field. The recovered parts of body were subjected to post-mortem. Photographs of the trunk, legs and head were also taken by a Photographer.

(v) That police also recovered blood stained cloths and shoes of the appellant at his instance and after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet on 19.4.1991 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg for offences under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the trial Court.

(vi) That the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

(vii) That Prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and produced about 56 documents. Statement of appellant was recorded Under section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure in which the appellant stated that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity.

(viii) The trial Court has, however on consideration of evidence recorded the order of conviction and passed the sentence mentioned herein above.

4. At the out-set it may be mentioned that entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case depending on circumstantial evidence, there should be a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. Chronology of events must be satisfactorily brought on record. A moral conviction, however, strong or genuine, cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in Law. It must be realised that the well established rule of criminal justice is that "FOULER THE CRIME, HIGHER THE PROOF." We could not rest content without citing, the leading decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 (in the case of Sharad v. The State of Maharashtra). In the above decision, following principles have been laid down :

(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must or should' and not `may be' established.

(ii) The facts so established should b