Circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory, can establish guilt in murder cases when direct evidence is unavailable.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The challenge in this appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is led to the judgment dated 22.8.1990 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (for short 'the trial court'), in Sessions Case No.3/1988, by which the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The period spent in the police/judicial custody has been ordered to be set-off in the original imprisonment.

3. The facts relevant and necessary for the disposal of this appeal are thus:-

"PW1 Radhey Shyam (informant) submitted a written report (Ex. Pl) to the Superintendent of Police and the S.H.O., Sawai Madhopur, Police Department, alleging inter-alia that his sister Prem Devi is residing in the house of Babulal Gogoriya on rent. In the same house, Pooran Singh, Police Officer is also residing on rent along with his children. In addition to them, 2-3 tenants are also residing in the same house. On 8.5.1978 in the night at about 2:00 AM, Pooran Singh, Police Officer, forcibly attempted to commit rape with his niece Sampat Bai for which a report was given by his sister Prem Devi, which was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for inquiry and in that application she submitted complete details. Today i.e. on 11.5.1978 at about 12:00-1:00 P.M. in the day, Munna, son of Pooran Singh tinkerly abused his sister Prem Devi and he also gave threatening to her a long- with her niece Sampat for committing their murder. In the intervening, he and Siraj Mohammad saved them.

Thereafter at about 2:00-3:00 P.M. in the afternoon when his niece Sampat was sleeping in the room in the upper portion of the house, his niece Mina went to take water and bread (roti), then she saw that Munna came in a fast speed from the room having a bottle containing therein l/4th kerosene. After seeing the smoke inside, she cried and came to him and thereafter he went there and saw that his niece Sam pat Bai was burnt and died."

4. On the basis of the said written report (Ex.Pl), an FIR No.85/1978 (Ex.P2) was registered at Police Station Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, for the offence under section 302 IPC. The investigation was assigned to Mr. Shankar Bux Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. After completion of investigation, the police submitted Final Negative Report.

5. Thereafter, on 23.5.1978 complainant/informant Radhey Shyam (PW1) filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, with the same averments mentioned in FIR No.85/1978. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 4.8.1979 against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and against co-accused Pooran Singh for the offence under sections 302 read with section 120B IPC and section 109 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Sawai Madhopur, for trial.

6. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant Mohan Singh for the offence under section 302 IPC and against co-accused Pooran Singh for the offence under section 302 read with section 120B IPC and in the alternative section 302 read with section 109 IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited nine documents to prove its case. Both the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case.

8. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and defence and appreciating the evidence available on the record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellant as mentioned above but the co-accuse