The judgment underscores the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The three appellants named above faced trial in sessions case No. 89/2013 arising out of FIR No. 123/2013 registered with Police Station Laxmangrh, Sikar. Learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 found all the appellants guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B IPC as well as for offence under Section 201 IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, two months rigorous imprisonment was ordered. For offence under Section 201 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2,000/-was awarded and in default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment was ordered. Appellant Vijay Prakash @ Birju was further convicted under Section 182 IPC and six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded and in default of payment of fine, 15 days simple imprisonment was ordered.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report dated 04.04.2013 submitted by appellant Vijayprakash @ Birju is that in the evening of 03.04.2013, his father was in the village, however in the morning of 04.04.2013, the informant got information that dead body of his father is laying at the Laxmangarh Beead. The informant suspected that FIR named seven persons who are agnates of informer would have committed murder of his father as they had attacked the house of informant in the past also for property dispute.

3. For proper appreciation of the case, it would be apt to look at the genealogy of family of parties. One Jhabar had three sons namely Kana Ram, Kesar Dev and Mahaveer. Mahaveer is victim of murder in this case. Appellant Vijay Prakash is son of Mahaveer, appellant Sohni Devi is wife of Mahaveer and appellant Ramswaroop is brother of Sohni Devi. The FIR named accused persons Kana Ram and Kesar Dev are brothers of the deceased. Bhagirath and Subhash are sons of Kana Ram and Kaushalya Devi is daughter of Kana Ram and FIR named accused Mahipal is son of accused Kesar Dev.

4. The written report of appellant Vijay Prakash was submitted to the police at the place where dead body of Mahaveer was found. The written report was sent for registration of police case and the dead body, after panchnama, was sent for post mortem examination and after post mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to appellant Vijay Prakash for cremation and cremation was performed by Vijay Prakash.

5. On 04.04.2013 itself, FIR named accused Kana Ram submitted a written complaint to the police alleging therein that Kana Ram suspects that murder of Mahaveer was committed by his wife Sohni Devi, son Vijay Prakash and Sanjay S/o Omkar as these accused were in litigation with the deceased. On completion of investigation, the police found that in fact, the appellants were involved in murder of Mahaveer.

6. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has examined altogether 24 witnesses, produced several documents and materials which are exhibited. The defence has not produced any evidence.

7. Out of 24 prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Ganpat Singh, PW-2 Banwari Lal, PW-4 Ramgopal, PW-5 Harphool Singh, PW-14 Richpal Singh, PW-15 Mahaveer Prasad, PW-16 Manoj Kumar, PW-17 Rajneesh Poonia, PW-18 Sanwar Mal, PW-19-Girdhari Lal Meena, PW-20, Jagdish Prasad and PW-23 Bhanu Choudhary are formal witnesses who have either proved the documents or witnessed the seizure made in the case during investigation. PW-21 is a hostile witness.

8. PW-3 Dr. Gangadhar Tholad had performed the post mortem examination. The doctor found multiple crushed wounds at the right parital region-Ribs of both sides had multiple fractures. Crushed wound was there at left illiac fossa and crushed and penetrating wound at the right lumber besides other crushed wounds. The penetrating wound was caused by the glass piece of the bottle of wine.