A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is permissible if the prosecution establishes a complete, unbroken chain of events that leads solely to the accused's guilt, excludes all other hypotheses, and is corroborated by consistent, reliable scientific and testimonial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.

1.Under challenge in the instant appeal is the judgement dated27.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short-`the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.2/14 whereby, the accused-appellant (for short- `the appellant’) has been convicted and vide order dated06.03.2018, sentenced as under:

1. Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-; in default whereof, three years’ additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. Section 201 IPC: Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-; in default whereof, one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. All the sentences to run concurrently

3. The relevant facts in brief are that on finding a ‘severed human head’ of an unidentified person near Railway Line, Ajmer Pulia, Jaipur, an FIR No.323 dated 27.12.2013 came to be lodged by Shri Mahesh Joshi-Sub Inspector, GRP Station, Jaipur at Police Station GRP, Jaipur under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown persons. After investigation, the appellant as also co- accused Mohammad Asif were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. The co-accused being juvenile, his trial was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC were framed against the appellant. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

4. It may be pertinent to observe here that vide order dated 22.09.2022, co-accused has been convicted by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC.

5. Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings of the learned trial court are based on conjectures and surmises and he has been convicted without there being any legally admissible evidence available on record against him. He contended that relying on the testimony of Deepak (PW7), Roli @ Neetu (PW11) and Shakuntala (PW30), it was held by the learned trial court that he was “seen last” in the company of the deceased whereas, they have claimed to have seen the deceased going with him on 25.12.2013 at about 10- 10.30 AM and his severed head was found on 27.12.2013, i.e., after two days of the “last seen” and in view of large interregnum time lag, this evidence was rendered of no significance.

6. He further contended that the second circumstance relied upon by the learned trial court against him was recovery of body parts of the deceased at his behest as also recovery of blood smeared articles allegedly from his residential house. He contended that since, the body parts were recovered from an open place accessible to all, this recovery does not inspire confidence. He submitted that so far as recovery of incriminating articles from his house is concerned, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to establish that the subject house, as a matter of fact, was either under his ownership or possession. Further, learned counsel canvassed that the prosecution has failed to specify the place where the deceased was murdered. Inviting attention towards the site plan (Ex.P6), he contended that in it, the place of murder committed allegedly by him either alone or with co-accused, was not reflected. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be all