Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction cannot rely on mere last seen theory without corroborating evidence.

Judgment :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

The present criminal appeal 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 11.11.1997, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, in Session Case No.57/1995 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded him sentence of life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s RI.

2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 01.05.1995, complainant Chandu Ram gave an oral information at Police Station Pilibangan to the effect that in the morning at about 6:30 AM, when he was going towards the way to Manak Theri, he saw the dead-body of Raju lying on the way and a pistol was also lying near the dead-body of Raju. The complainant alleged that someone murdered Raju by gunshot.

3. On the said oral report, Police registered the FIR No.101/1995 and started investigation. During investigation, Police arrested the appellant on 02.05.1995. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC.

4. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant, who denied the charge and sought trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

6. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, a document was exhibited.

7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 11.11.1997 convicted and sentenced the present accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant against his conviction.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently submitted that this case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, which includes the evidence of last seen theory. However, the circumstantial evidence in this case does not establish any connection between the present accused-appellant and the alleged crime. It is contended that the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the FIR, which was filed by the complainant Chandu Ram (PW-2) and later a “last seen” witness was produced by the prosecution, Nathi, mother of the deceased Raju. It is submitted that Nathi, in her statement deposed that in the evening before the incident, accused-appellant-Gopi Ram came to her house and took deceased-Raju along with him. The following morning, the dead-body of Raju was discovered. Counsel submits that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of witness Nathi (PW-11) was recorded by the Police after two days of incident. When she reached at the place where the dead-body of Raju discovered, both the accused-appellant-Gopiram and complainant-Chandu Ram (PW-2) were already present. However, Nathi did not mention in her statement that on the previous evening, deceased Raju had gone with accused-appellant. She only identified the accused appellant to the police at a later stage. This suggests that her statement was an afterthought and cannot be relied upon. Counsel further submits that the weapon used in the incident i.e. pistol was recovered from the vicinity of the deceased’s body. However, no recovery of weapon was made from the present accused-appellant. Thus, the learned trial court fell into error of law to appreciate these material