The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of circumstances and reliable evidence to prove guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.41/2015 (23/2010):

2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:

4. The dead body of one Ladudas Vaishnav who used to serve in the Ganesh Prajapat Hanumanji Temple, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bhilwara, was found lying in an abandoned condition by one Pyarchand S/o Amraji working as a Guard in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bhilwara. Shri Pyarchand lodged a written report (Ex.P/24) at the Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara on 25.09.2009 alleging that some unknown person had hit Ladudas by a stone and killed him. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.306/2009 (Ex.P/25) came to be registered at Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara and investigation was commenced. The dead body of the victim Ladudas was subjected to postmortem at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara by Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.8) who noticed presence of six lacerated wounds and one contusion along with haematoma in tempo-parietal region which led to the death of Ladudas. Postmortem report (Ex.P/8) was issued by the medical jurist. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer Om Prakash Verma (PW.20) claims to have collected evidence suggesting involvement of the appellant Ganesh Lal in the murder which led to his arrest on 26.09.2009 vide arrest memo Ex.P./7. The Investigating Officer claims to have interrogated the appellant and acting on the informations provided to him by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/27 & Ex.P/28), a stone (Ex.P/13) used for hitting the deceased and a shirt (Ex.P/15) allegedly thrown away by the accused after the murder, were recovered from near the temple. A charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the court concerned.

5. As the offence was triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara from where it was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents to prove its case. It may be stated here that Pyarchand, the first informant who was portrayed as a witness of last seen during investigation, expired and thus, his statement could not be recorded in the trial. Be that as it may, it is alleged that the stone (Ex.P/13) and the shirt (Ex.P/15) purportedly recovered at the instance of the accused and the blood smeared soil (Ex.P/2) and the bedding (Ex.P/3) recovered from the place where the dead body was found, were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur from where a report (Ex.P/29) was received as per which, all these articles were found stained with 'B' group blood. After hearing arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence, this appeal.

6. Shri R.S. Gill, learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the only evidence against the appellant, on the basis whereof he has been convicted by the trial court, is in the form of the recoveries of the blood stained stone (Ex.P/13) and the blood stained shirt (Ex.P/15). However, as per Shri Gill, these recoveries were effected from a place which was open and accessible to all and sundry. He urged that the recoveries are totally fabricated and do not inspire confidence and hence, there is no evidence worth the name on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the crim