The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J. - This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 20.03.2006 and order dated 22.03.2006, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2005, whereby appellants Birender Singh and Manbir alias Lala, who were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201, 404 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 302/34 IPC. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 392 IPC. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 201 IPC. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 404 IPC.

2. According to learned counsel for the appellants, appellant Birender Singh died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, appeal qua him stood abated vide order dated 24.02.2020.

3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 07.06.2003, a telephonic message was received from Ram Kishan son of Sukhbir Singh to the effect that a dead body was lying on Surakhpur-Girawar road near minor. SHO along with ASI Mahipal and other police officials reached the spot. They met Ram Kishan. According to Ram Kishan, at about 7.30 AM, his father Sukhbir Singh reached near minor on Surakhpur-Girawar road from the fields. When he reached near the minor, he found the dead body of a young boy lying there. The dead body was having a plastic string around his neck. He informed the police. The dead body was not identified by any body. Ruqa was sent to the police station. FIR was registered. Photographs were taken and inquest report was prepared. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The cause of death in the post-mortem report was mentioned to be asphyxia and shock due to strangulation, which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. The clothes of the dead body were kept in safe custody for identification. On 12.06.2003, SI Seva Singh along with Seva Singh son of Udey Singh and Hazara Singh identified the photographs and dead body to be of Harjit Singh son of Seva Singh. Clothes were taken into police possession. Statement of Sumit Kumar was recorded on 13.06.2003 and car No. DL-3CU-4249 was taken into police possession, when a message was received from Lok Nath Tiwari, Damo, M.P. to the effect that the car in question was lying there and some persons were trying to sell it. ASI Hanif Mohammed went to M.P. Accused Birender and Manbir were arrested on 14.06.2003. Offences under Sections 404/392 IPC were also added on 13.06.2003. ASI Hanif Mohammed recorded the statements of the witnesses on 14.06.2003. Accused made disclosure statements Ex. PB and Ex. PC. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

4. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. According to them, they were falsely implicated. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed here-in-above. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove