Point of law: In a criminal case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances must be proved by leading unimpeachable evidence pointing invariably to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence and then only the conviction can be recorde

JUDGMENT :

MEHTA, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the appellants Gurdas Singh @ Janta Singh @ Gurjant Singh and Nattha Singh being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.21/2015, whereby they were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment two years.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

3. Sahab Ram (P.W.3) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Goluwala on 11.07.2012 at 07.30 a.m. He stated inter alia that he and his brother Mahaveer owned a vehicle, which used to be plied for hire. On the previous day, i.e. 10.07.2012, he had taken one Raj Baba to Pakka Bhadwa for attending a Jagran. He received a call from his brother, Mahaveer, the same night at about 12 o’clock, who told him that he was driving a passenger, whom he (the informant) should drop at Raisinghnagar and he would pick and drop Raj Baba. However, the informant did not receive any call from Mahaveer. The informant reached home at about 3 o’clock in the morning and asked his wife about Mahaveer, on which he came to know that Mahaveer had taken his own vehicle and headed somewhere in the night. The informant thereafter went to sleep. In the morning at about 6 o’clock, one Babu Kumhar informed him that his vehicle was abandoned on Hansaliya dirt road and that dead body of Mahaveer was lying face down with numerous marks of injuries just near the vehicle. He suspected that some unknown miscreants called Mahaveer from his home, assaulted him and killed him by causing injuries on his head.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.180/2012 was registered at the Police Station Goluwala on 11.07.2012 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC against unknown accused persons. During the course of investigation, finger of suspicion was pointed towards the appellants and one Seepa @ Sukhdeep Singh. The appellants were apprehended and recoveries were effected on the basis of informations provided by them to the Investigating Officer. The third accused Seepa was also apprehended, but as he was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident, he was presented before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. The Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the weapons of offence and the clothes of the accused, all of which were found to be stained with blood of group ‘A’, which as per the FSL Report Ex.P/70, matched with the group of blood found in the soil samples recovered from the place of occurrence and the clothes of the deceased. It is also alleged that supsected foot moulds collected from nearby the place of incident tallied with the slippers of the accused persons, as per the FSL Report Ex.P/69. It was also alleged that a call was made from the mobile number 9828290115, supposedly in use of the appellant Gurdas Singh, to the mobile of the deceased at 12 o’clock in the night of occurrence and he was called to the place of incident under the garb of engaging his taxi. The prosecution further claimed that appellant Nattha Singh got the above mobile number (9828290115) recharged through Praveen Kumar (P.W.2) on 10.07.2012. The prosecution claims on the basis of these significant links in the chain of circumstantial evidence that the accused appellants were exclusively and conclusively responsible for the murder of Mahaveer. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellants in the court concerned for the offence under Section 302/34, which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and hence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, from where, it was trans