The judgment underscores that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - The accused-appellants have preferred the instant appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. aggrieved against the judgment dated 30.04.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District - Sriganganagar ('the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 26/2012, whereby appellants - Kishan @ Kishan Lal and Satish have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are as under:-

3. On 03.08.2012, an FIR No. 433/2012 (Exhibit - 25) was registered at Police Station - Anoopgarh, District - Sriganganagar on the basis of written report (Exhibit - 10) submitted by Teeja Devi (PW-2); in the written report, she alleged that on 01.08.2012, wallet of her son Rupi @ Rooplal was picked up by Kishan Balmiki s/o. Mangla Ram, Govind s/o. Gopal and Satish s/o. Bugga Ram. On getting information regarding the pick-pocketing by them, in the morning at about 12 O'clock these persons were called and inquired about the wallet. After taking meals at about 4 PM, Rupi @ Rooplal went with Kishan, Govind and Satish on the motorcycle, driven by Kishan Balmiki, they went to her brother Bansilal at Banda Colony, stayed there for some time and went off; her son did not return home in the night and at 8.30 AM in the morning, her nephew Sethi s/o. Bansilal informed her that Rupi's dead body was lying at 79 GB, which was lying in the channel near the road. Then she alongwith her brother Bansilal and her father Nathu Ram and other members of the family went to the site, where Kishan Balmiki, Govind Balmiki and Satish Dhanak had together killed her son Rupi, aged 25 years by inflicting injuries and, therefore, action be taken.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was undertaken by Amarjeet Chawla, SHO, Police Station - Anoopgarh, who went to the site prepared Panchnama of the dead body (Exhibit - P/5), collected evidence from the site i.e. bloodstained soil, piece of broken brick, which appeared to be bloodstained, prepared site map, the dead body was subjected to autopsy by the Medical Board, which issued the postmortem report (Exhibit - 24), statements of witnesses were recorded and pictures from the site were taken. On 09.08.2012, both the accused - Satish and Kishan @ Kishan Lal were arrested vide Exhibit - P/11 and P/12 respectively. Kishan gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and got recovered the motorcycle from his house; on 11.08.2012, Kishan gave information about the place of altercation. On the information of Kishan, wallet was recovered. Kishan & Satish also got recovered brick pieces, which were seized and were sealed.

5. After concluding investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 and in the alternative 302/34 IPC.

6. The trial court framed charges against both the accused-appellants under Section 302 and in the alternative 302/34 IPC.

7. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents to prove its case. The accused-appellants, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence denied the same, claimed to be innocent and made a prayer for leading defence evidence, but finally no oral evidence was led in defence.

8. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as indicated hereinbefore.

9. The accused-appellants have preferred the present appeals being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.04.2015.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently