Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Mere suspicion, lack of temporal proximity in witness sightings, or flawed recovery procedures are insufficient to sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-complainant under Section 372 Cr.P.C. read with Section 413 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, assailing the validity of the judgment dated 09.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial court”) in Sessions Case No.45/2018 (C.I.S. No.23/20), whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents, namely, Rameshwar & Ramkanya of the charges levelled against them.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 30.01.2018, the complainant-appellant Shambhulal submitted a written report at Police Station Mandal stating therein that his son Narendra @ Nagjiram aged about 11 years, a student of Class VI at Gopal Dwar, Senior Secondary School, had left home at around 11:00 AM for attending school but did not return even after the school was closed at about 3:30 PM. It was further alleged that despite making extensive efforts to search for him at all possible places, his whereabouts could not be traced.

3. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No.34/2018 (Ex.P/25) was registered at Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 363 & 342 IPC.

4. During the course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased Narendra @ Nagjiram was recovered from a well and was thereafter taken out. The accused-respondents, namely Rameshwar and Ramkanya, were summoned and interrogated. It is alleged that during such investigation, it came to light that the deceased had seen the accused persons in a compromising position, whereupon accused-respondents Rameshwar allegedly lured the deceased and took him along, and thereafter killed him and disposed of the dead body by throwing it into the said well.

5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet against the accused-respondent Rameshwar for the offence under Sections 302, 364 & 201 of IPC and against accused- respondent Ramkanya for the offence under Sections 302, 364 & 201/115 before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandal, District Bhilwara, from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge Bhilwara for trial.

6. The learned Trial Court framed, read over, and explained the charges under Sections 302, 364 & 201 IPC to the accused- respondent Rameshwar and Sections 364, 302, 201 & 302/114 to the accused-respondent Ramkanya, separately, but they denied the same and claimed trial.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses, exhibited documents from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-46, and also produced and marked Article Nos. 1 to 7 in support of its case.

8. The statements of the accused–respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, claimed false implication, and asserted their innocence. In defence, the accused–respondents also led documentary evidence, which was exhibited as Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5.

9. Learned Trial Court, upon hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and after appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the accused- respondent Rameshwar of the charge under Sections 302, 364 & 201 and the accused-responde