The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish criminal conspiracy, murder, and possession of a firearm. The court emphasized the need for unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 respectively passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat in Sessions cases arising out of FIR No.132 dated 08.04.2013 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonipat under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act whereby the accused Priyavart, Sandeep @ Kala, Anil @ Leela, Parveen @ Kaira, Pardeep & Sumit @ Pehalwan were held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of IPC and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused Sumit @ Pehalwan was also held guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of Arms Act.

2. The prosecution was set into motion in this case on 08.04.2013 when the dead body of an unknown youth was found by PW-1 Rakesh to be lying near the gate of Saraswati Shiksha Shansthan, Murthal Road, Sonepat. He had informed the owner of the school namely, PW-2 Vikas who had further informed the police. The victim was found to have sustained several fire arm injuries and spent as well as live cartridges and empties were found lying near the dead body. Post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on the same day. Inquest proceedings were also conducted. A case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act was registered. On 09.04.2013, Dharambir s/o Rishi Pal, r/o Village Purkhas, District Sonepat contacted the police and identified the dead body to be that of his son Parveen @ Parchi. He got recorded his statement that Malad resident of Village Karor, his co-brother (husband of his sister-in-law Rajbala) was brother of Sarpanch of Village Karor who had rivalry with accused Anil who was a gangster. Malad was lodged in Hisar Jail in connection with some murder case which had occurred due to enmity between accused Anil @ Leela and family of Malad. Parveen @ Parchi son of Dharambir used to visit his mausa Malad in the jail. He further recorded that accused Anil @ Leela and Sandeep @ Kala were lodged in Tihar Jail, Delhi. Accused Pardeep, brother of accused Sandeep @ Kala had threatened the victim to not to meet Malad and help him in pursuing his cases and otherwise to face dire consequences. He disclosed that on the evening of 07.04.2013 at about 8:30 PM, his son was sitting in the Chaupal adjacent to their house, when accused Priyavart, a co-villager came on a Platina motorcycle and took his son Parveen along with him. On asking, Priyavart told him that they would be returning in short time. He further stated that his son did not return back on 08.04.2013. He had made search for his son and came to know that accused Priyavart was also missing. He further recorded that some days before 07.04.2013, he had seen some unknown youths while roaming around with accused Priyavart. He raised suspicion that the accused Anil @ Leela and Sandeep lodged in jail had hatched a conspiracy with accused Pardeep and had joined Priyavart into the said conspiracy and thereafter killed the victim and hence he prayed for taking penal action against the culprits.

3. On the basis of statement of PW-20 Dharambir, offence under Section 120-B of IPC was added. Further investigation was conducted. The accused Priyavart was apprehended and arrested on 19.04.2013. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the subject crime and also about involvement of co-accused Pardeep and Anil @ Leela, Sandeep and Amit Dahiya @ Sonu and Parveen and demarcated the place of occurrence. On the basis of his statement, the co-accused Sandeep and Anil who were in custody