A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Accused/appellants-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and Nirmala @ Dhara, have preferred these Criminal Appeals aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 18.05.2017 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.41/2013 (27/2013), whereby, the accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya, has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 201 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). For offence under Section 302 I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months; for offence under Section 201 I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and for offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months. Accused/appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara has been convicted for offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. and has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 months Rigorous Imprisonment. All substantive sentences to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Ramji Lal (PW-3) filed a complaint on 04.02.2013 (Ex.P-7), which was a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural, alleging that on 03.02.2013 at about 02:00 p.m, his nephew Udda @ Udai Singh, left the house after telling that he is going to Devnarayan Maharaj, Village Jodhpuriya, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk. It is mentioned in the First Information Report that at around 6-7 pm, when they tried to contact Udda @ Udai Singh on Mobile No.9680485453, it was found to be out of coverage area. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 04.02.2013 at around 02:00 pm, the police informed Ramdev (PW-11) that they have found a sim of Mobile No.9680485453 and inquired about the relationship of sim holder with him. Ramdev (PW-11) replied that the mobile sim was with his son Udda @ Udai Singh. Thereupon when he reached near Keriya, the police was bringing dead body of his nephew. There were multiple injuries caused from knife on his face and hands. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that some unknown persons had killed his nephew and thrown his dead body on Kaccha Path of Kanwarpura. On the basis of the report, the police registered the F.I.R. No.45/2013 at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural and started investigation.

3. On conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused-appellants-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and Nirmala @ Dhara for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. were framed against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and charge under Section 120-B I.P.C. was framed against accused-appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara. Both the accused-appellants denied charges and claimed trial. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses & 38 documents were exhibited and 12 articles were produced. The learned Trial Court examined the accused-appellants-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and Nirmala @ Dhara under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, they denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, 3 witnesses, namely; Dhannalal Bairwa (D.W-1), Sukhdev (D.W-2) and Kaluram Gurjar (D.W-3) were examined. Police statements Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5, were got exhibited. After hearing the arguments, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment found the present accused-appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated herein above.

4. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellants that the prosecution cas