Circumstantial evidence must create a complete and unbroken chain of proof to establish guilt; mere conjecture is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1.These three criminal appeals arise out of the judgment dated 11.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 16, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.01/2018 (33/2015) whereby, the accused- appellants (for brevity, ‘the appellants’) have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Under Section 302 /34 IPC :- Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- each; in default whereof, two months’ additional imprisonment.

Under Section 120 -B IPC :- Two years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each; in default whereof, one month’s additional imprisonment.

2. Sentences to run concurrently.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that based on a written report dated 09.05.2015 (Ex. P-3) submitted by Shri Gulshan Saini (PW-3), an FIR No. 309/2015 (Ex. P-4) came to be registered at Police Station, Kardhani, District-Jaipur (South) for the offence under Sections 302 /34 and 120-B IPC . It was stated in the written report that yesterday at about 7:30-8:00 P.M., his younger brother-Surendra Saini, upon receiving a call, dropped Shri Navaratan Saini near a park and went somewhere, whereafter, no contact could be made with him. It was further stated that despite efforts, he could not be traced in the night. It was averred that his known informed him at about 7:00-7:20 A.M. today that a dead body was lying near Shantibagh Garden which was found to be of his brother Surendra Saini having a number of incised and stab wounds. It was alleged that the appellants and one Mahendra Tanwar had animosity with his brother and they had threatened him of assassination two days ago and therefore, a doubt was cast upon them of his murder. After investigation, the appellants alongwith co-accused Mahendra Singh Shekhawat were charge- sheeted under , 34 and 120B . Charge against them was framed under the aforesaid sections. They pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. During the course of trial, co-accused Mahendra Singh Shekhawat expired and after trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsels for the appellants submit that the learned trial Court’s findings are based on conjectures and surmises and it erred in recording their conviction even in absence of any legally admissible evidence against them. They submit that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is absence of the complete chain leading to the only conclusion of their guilt. They submit that the evidence with regard to ‘last seen’ is not creditworthy and it was unsafe to convict them based thereupon. Learned counsels submit that in view of the fact that the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, i.e., a knife is from an open place and there was absence of blood grouping on it as per the FSL report, it could not have been held that it was the weapon used in commission of the offence. They submit that even otherwise, based on mere recovery, their conviction could not have been recorded/sustained. They further submit that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in holding that the appellants had a motive to eliminate the deceased inasmuch as the prosecution evidence, in this regard, is based on hearsay and is totally unreliable. They, therefore, pray that the appeals be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 11.06.2019 be quashed and set aside and they may be acquitted of the charge framed against them.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor,