A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.11/2013, whereby has been convicted and sentenced as below :-

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow :-

Obaram (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Nana, District Pali on 13.12.2012 alleging inter alia that he had submitted a report regarding his younger brother Nenaram having gone missing on 11.12.2012. While he was looking out for his brother, his brother Dinesh (P.W.2) told him that in the evening of 01.12.2012, Nenaram was seen having liquor with Praveen S/o Bheema Ji, Heeraram S/o Bheemaji Raingaram S/o Chataraji near a brick stack. He apprehended that these three persons had conspired to kill Nenaram and the dead body had been secreted.

On this report, the Investigating Officer took further information from Obaram, who stated that his brother Nenaram had no animosity whatsoever with Praveen, Heeraram and Raingaram and that a sudden incident must have flared up, in which his brother was assaulted. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.236/2012 came to be registered at the Police Station Nana, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and investigation was commenced. It is pertinent to note here that in the endorsement after registration of the FIR, it was categorically mentioned that the file of the Missing Person Report No.15 dated 11.12.2012 was being annexed with the file of the present FIR.

After registration of the FIR, investigation was undertaken by Shyam Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, Bali, who arrested the accused appellant Heeraram vide arrest memo Ex.P/8 on 13.12.2012 at 01.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer claims that the accused Heeraram gave a voluntary information (Ex.P/32) divulging that he and his companions had concealed the dead body of Nenaram in a pit near the brick stack in the field of Jagtaram and that he could get the same recovered. The Investigating Officer further claims that acting in furtherance of such information, the accused, the police team and the SDO, Bali proceeded to the field of Jagtaram, where a spot was pointed out by the Accused Heeraram, from where the bushes, bricks and sand were removed and a denuded dead body was recovered vide exhumation memo Ex.P/2. Fard Surat Haal Lash (Ex. P/3) and Panchnama Laash (Ex. P/4) were prepared. The dead body was subjected to autopsy at the hands of a medical board, which issued the postmortem report Ex.P/18 taking note of numerous injuries on the body of the deceased and opining that the cause of death of Nenaram was shock due to injuries to vital body parts, i.e. both lungs, associated with multiple fractures. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The other three accused persons, namely, Ramesh Kumar, Praveen Kumar and Raingaram @ Raghunathram, were also arrested and it is alleged that acting on the information provided by the accused Raingaram vide Ex.P/38, the clothes of the deceased were recovered.

After concluding investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant herein and the three co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302/34, 201 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) of the SC/ST Act in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First