The judgment emphasizes the reliance on circumstantial evidence and forensic findings to establish guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.

This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2010/01.06.2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in Sessions Case No.42 of 2008 whereby the appellants, who along with Ravi son of Ishwar were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302/396/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, each, under Section 302/149 IPC and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, each, under Section 396/149 IPC and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Ravi son of Ishwar was acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell was that Naseeb Singh s/o Bir Singh got his statement recorded before SI/SHO Pawan Kumar on 23.06.2008 to the effect that he was a resident of Khotpura, Police Station Sadar, Panipat. He was a labourer. He had three sons and one daughter. His son Mahinder (19 years) used to work as a driver on the tractor trolley of Karambir s/o Surjan who was engaged in the work of filling earth in the plots and supplying building material. His son Mahinder used to return to home daily in the evening after finishing the work. Sometimes, he used to stay at the house of Karambir. On 21.06.2008, his son did not come home at night. He remained under the impression that his son might have stayed with Karambir. The next day i.e. on 22.06.2008 he telephoned Karambir and asked about the whereabouts of his son. Karambir informed him that the previous night at about 2.30 AM Mahinder had gone to Faridpur sand mine to lift the earth which was to be dropped by him at Panipat. The trolley of sand had not been delivered at Panipat till then. He was not aware as to where Mahinder has gone. After this Naresh, the younger brother of Karambir came to the complainant in his village. Both of them tried to trace Mahinder. He could not be located in the nearby villages. Even in the Civil Hospital there was no information regarding him. On 23.6.2008 when he and Naresh were going in search of Mahinder on motorcycle towards the mine of Faridpur 2/3 ladies met them on the way and informed that dead body of a young boy was lying in the paddy field of Harish Bhatia in the area of Garh Sarnia. On reaching there they recognized the dead body as of Mahinder. Three-four pairs of slippers (chappels) were lying between the road and field. He suspected that some unknown persons had robbed the tractor trolley after committing the murder of Mahinder.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement a case under Section 392/396/34 IPC was registered against unknown persons. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The statement of witnesses under Section 161 was recorded. The postmortem examination of the body was conducted. The accused were arrested. On completion of investigation they were sent for trial under Section 302/392/396 read with Section 149 IPC.

4. Vide order dated 17.7.2009 Ravi Tyagi son of Sat Parkash was declared as juvenile and sent for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board.

5. The prosecution examined number of witnesses in its support. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied that they had committed the crime. They stated that they were innocent. They had been falsely implicated in the case. It was a blind murder and the case has been falsely planted upon them in order to solve it. Nothing was recovered from them nor had they made any disclosure statements to the police. The police had obtained their signatures on some blank papers which were used for the purpose of disclosure statement and recovery memos. Accused Sunil additionally pleaded that he was minor at the time of the occurrence.

6. The appellants w