In a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, of a conclusive nature and tendency, exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and form a complete chain of evidence that shows that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

MADAN MOHAN LAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a alminal appeal against the judgment and, order dated 6-11-1978 passed by Sri. V. S. Agarwal, the then ill Additional Sessions Judge, Agra by which he has convicted the above named three appellants under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. (without the held of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.) and has sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year respectively thereunder.

( 2 ) AJAI Singh, appellant, and his father Ausan Singh, were running a transport company by the name of Local Transport and Ajai Goods Carrier, Shyam Lal and his father Natthi Lal, informant, had five trucks which were attached to the said company. On 6-7-1977 Natthi Lal informant and his son Shyam Lal, deceased, separated and opened their own separate transport company by the name and style of Hind Local Transport Co. Ajai Singh appellant and his father Ausan Singh felt. aggrieved because they started incurring losses on account of the same. Ghanshyam, appellant, had fired a shot at Shyam Lal on 3-12-1975 for which he was being prosecuted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code Ajai Singh appellant got friendly with the said Ghanshyam appellant. Muma alias Bir Bahadur appellant was the truck driver of Ajai Singh and Satish accused was his friend. It is alleged that on 18-7-1977 at about 5 p. m. Ajai Singh and Ghanshyam advanced threats to Shyam Lal deceased that either he should close his own separate transport company or face consequence of death.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution on 18-7-1977 at bout 10. 30 p. m. when Shyam Lal deceased. was getting truck No. U. P 8274 repaired in Transport Nagar, Agra all the three appellants, alongwith Satish Accused, came there in their own truck No. 2645 and told Shyam Lal that his truck No. U. T. R. 6147 had got stuck in the. jungle of Bainpur and that he should reach there. Shyam Lal, deceased replied that at the moment he had no arrangement for conveyance because his other truck was under repair. On the same the appellants and their companion Satish offered to give Shyam Lal deceased a lift. Shyam Lal deceased accompanied them in their truck towards Sikandra and thereafter he was not seen. Natthi Lal informant remained searching for him but when he failed to trace his son Shyam Lal he went to the Police Station Han Parbat. Agra and lodged report of the incident on 19-7-1977 at 9. 10 p. m.

( 4 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses P. W. 1 Natthi Lal. P. W. 2 Pooran Singh. P. W. 3 Sirajuddin and P. W. 4 Asimuddin are the witnesses in whose presence Shyam Lal was said to have been taken away by the appellants and Satish. P. W. 1 Natthi Lid also deposed about the motive P. W. 5 Bachchu Singh was driver of Truck No. U. T. R. 6147. He deposed that his truck has never got stuck in the jungle of Bainpur or any where else. P. W. 6 Har prasad had seen one yellow coloured truck on a path-way of his village. He had heard cries for help from the, said Truck. P. W. 8 Baboo Lal had seen Ajai Singh and Ghanshiam appellants standing near Truck No. 2645 parked at Jamuna Bridge. He heard a noise of a thing falling in Jamuna at about 1. 1. 15 a. m P. W. 9 Kammod Singh was cleaner of the aforesaid truck No. U. P. U. 2645. He had scratched spots of blood from the said truck at instance of Ajai Singh and Munna appellants. P. W. 10 Autar Singh is witness of the taking of blood-stained wood etc. . from the aforesaid truck and blood-stained and unstained earth from Jamuna Bridge etc. Ajai Singh and. Ghanshiam appellants were said to have made extra-judicial confessions before P. W. 11 Ramdhani. P. W. 12 Bhoop Singh was clerk constable at Police Station Han Parbat. On 19-7-1977 he had received written report of the incident from Natthi Lal and on the same he had registered this case. P. W. 13 Kali Charan is a formal police witness. P. W. 14 Gaya Prasad is a police photographe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document