A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case due to procedural issues and lack of convincing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 22.09.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh camp Gharsana, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 13/2014, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and awarded sentence of life imprisonment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant, who was eventually found to be the accused in the instant case filed a written report in the Police Station Rawla inter-alia averring that when he went to the house of his brother - Rajesh, at around 7-8 a.m. in the morning of 30.05.2014 for taking back his utensils, he found the gate to be closed and upon peeping through the gate, he saw his brother lying on the bed with certain head injuries. It was also stated therein that he then called the neighbors and found that his brother had been assaulted on his head with some sharp edged weapon due to which he had passed away.

3. On the written information so given, an FIR No. 112/2014 came to be registered against unknown persons for offence under Sections 449 and 302 of I.P.C.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of various witnesses and collected a few evidence on the basis whereof, he concluded that none other than the informant himself - present appellant had murdered the deceased.

5. After usual investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana whereafter, the case was committed to the trial court.

6. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellant on 05.01.2015 for offence under Sections 302 and 449 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The accused denied the charges and asked for trial.

7. During the course of trial, 22 witnesses appeared in the witness box and 54 documents were produced and exhibited to prove the prosecution case. Appellant’s statement were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence and contended that he has been falsely implicated.

8. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court found the offence proved against the accused-appellant and convicted him for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and awarded sentence of life imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C along with fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. A separate sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 449 I.P.C along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment was passed, however, with a stipulation that both the sentences would run concurrently.

9. Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, learned senior counsel to begin with his submissions apprised the Court that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye witness to the incident. He submitted that the case against the accused - appellant has been found to be proved on the basis of recovery of weapon; recovery of clothes; evidence of last seen; and extra judicial confession, whereas on the basis of evidence on record, the trial court could not have reached to a conclusion that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased. He argued that the motive which the trial Court has found behind the murder was also imaginary and, ther