Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, provided that it is strong and convincing and that it establishes a complete chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - These three appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants Under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 23.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajasamand in sessions Case No. 4/2005 by which the learned Judge convicted the accused-appellants as under:-

1. under section 302 IPC read with 149 IPC-Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

2. under section 396 IPC-Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

3. under section 397 IPC-Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

4. under section 412 IPC-Ten years R.I, and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

5. under section 460 IPC-Ten years R.I, and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case are that PW/2 Bhuri Lal complainant filed a written report before the Police Station Khamnore District Rajasamand in which he has mentioned that "today i.e. on 25.10.2004 my wife informed me in the morning at about 7.30-8 AM, somebody has killed Ratan lal in the night. I went there and saw that the gate was open and blood was lying there. Ratan lal had received neck injury and the dead body of Ratan lal was lying, he saw the dead body of Basanti who is wife of Ratan lal and she had also received neck injury. On previous night some unknown person entered in their house and killed both of them. The written report is marked as Ex.P/14 and in pursuance of the written report, FIR Ex. P/76 was registered at the police station Khamnore District Rajasamand.

3. The police started investigation and arrested four accused persons namely Bhagwan Das, Lal Das, Pushkar Das and Udai lal @ Billo on 26.10.2004 and arrested accused Dalu on 28.10.2004. After the arrest of these accused, police recovered gold ornaments as well as coins from all the accused-appellants. The police also recovered blood stained clothes from all the accused persons. The police recovered one blood stained knife from Bhagwan Das and one rope (Rassi) which was also blood stained. After thorough investigation, the police filed a challan against the five accused-appellants before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Nathdwara. Later on this case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara where the charges of the accused were framed against all the accused-appellants.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses in all and 94 documents were exhibited. Thereafter statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 were recorded wherein he denied the charges and claimed a trial.

5. On the defence side, statement of DW/1 Sohan Singh and Dw/2 Hangami Das were recorded.

6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nathdwara vide his Judgment dated 23.06.2006 convicted the accused-appellants as mentioned earlier.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that this is a case of blind murder and there is no motive on the part of the accused-appellants to kill both the deceased. It is further argued that the recovery of gold ornaments and coins was not properly matched when the identification parade was held. Likewise the recovery of clothes as an evidence was also very much doubtful because when police arrested the accused persons, they were wearing the blood stained clothes. It is not possible that the accused appellants wore those clothes up to the next day of the occurrence in a blood stained condition. The learned counsel further argued that the weapon of offence was recovered only from Bhagwan das and no weapon was reco