In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all the links forming the chain of prosecution must be proved completely, and the case must be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for a conviction.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

1. Judgment rendered on 18.12.2015 by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu where under respondents have been acquitted, is proposed to be challenged, as such, appeal has been preferred after the prescribed period of limitation, Instant application has been filed seeking leave to file.

2. While considering submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and while going through the judgment, what emerges is that it shall be futile to grant leave when the result of the appeal is obviously a failure.

3. Learned Sr. AAG when confronted with findings as recorded in the judgment impugned, was candid enough to state that the chances of success of the appeal are very less.

4. Out of 34 listed prosecution witnesses, only 25 had been produced, most of the said witnesses have been declared hostile where after in cross-examination by PP as permitted nothing favourable to the prosecution has been elicited.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence has concluded that the prosecution is totally based on circumstantial evidence. The links of chain of prosecution are not complete. The evidence lead by the prosecution is mostly shaky, therefore, it is very difficult to conclude commission of the offence by the accused.

6. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the facts, circumstances and the position of law, we are not persuaded to take a view different to what has been taken by the trial Court.

7. It is the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that for recording conviction, case has to be proved beyond shadow of doubt. It is also trite that where a case is totally based on circumstantial evidence, then all the links forming chain have to be proved completely and cumulative connection of all chains shall lead to only conclusion that the crime has been committed by the accused and none else. While appreciating the evidence as lead by prosecution, as has been quoted by the learned trial Court in the judgment, to which no exception has been taken by the appellant, we are afraid, if appeal against such judgment can be entertained, more so when the judgment is Inconsonance and inconformity with law. To grant leave and to condone the delay, then to ask for appearance of the respondent, in our view, shall be a futile exercise. By no stretch of imagination, in our view, conclusion can be different than what has been concluded by the trial Court.

8. The edifice of the prosecution case is also destroyed by the statement of important witness Dr. Gagan Bhagat, to a specific query as was raised by the police, the doctor had replied that the cause of death may be accidental, the cause of death in both the cases was not homicidal but due to drowning. If it be so, then in absence of the evidence connecting anyone with the commission of drowning, it can be presumed that the deceased were not killed by anyone.

9. In the up-shot, leave sought is declined. As a necessary corollary thereto, application seeking condonation is dismissed and appeal also dismissed as barred by limitation.