The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of events and the need to prove motive and the last seen theory in circumstantial evidence cases.

Anil Kumar Sharma, J.: -

The appellant - State of U. P. has challenged the acquittal of the sole respondent recorded by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur vide judgment and order dated 3.10.2005 in S. T. No. 20 of 2005 u/s 302, 201 IPC P. S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur.

2. We have heard the learned AGA and perused the original record of the case carefully.

3. Facts germane to the appeal are that on 3.10.2004 complainant Rishipal submitted a missing report of his brother Pala s/o Kalu Ram aged about 50 years since 26.9.2004. His nephew Johny met Pala in the bus who told him that he is going to the house of Rakesh situated at Dera Satpal Singh Raja Nagpal. His brother Pala has not returned since 26.9.2004 and during search he came to know that accused Rakesh has told some one that he along with Brahman Sukesh s/o Baru Lal had strangulated Pala to death. On 5.10.2004 the complainant lodged another report with the police on the basis whereof case was registered and investigation started. The same day, the investigating officer arrested accused Rakesh at about 2: 45 p.m. and after interrogation he got the cadaver of the deceased recovered from a pond of village Ismailpur. Recovery memo was prepared. Thereafter, inquest and post-mortem examination of the corpse of the deceased were done. It was alleged by the complainant that there is a dispute between the brahmans and harijans in respect of Gram Samaj land. The investigation ended in a charge sheet against the accused which was submitted on 30.10.2004.

4. During trial charge for the offence punishable u/s 302/201 IPC was framed against the respondent, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution had examined Ram Pal Singh PW-1, Rishipal PW-2, Johny PW-3, Dharam Veer PW-5, Dr. A. K. Verma PW-5, Brijesh PW-6, SO Jagat Kumar Singh PW-7, HC Sunil Kumar PW-8 and Constable Pramod Kumar. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P. C., the accused-respondent had again denied the entire prosecution story and claimed false implication. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties' counsel has acquitted the accused-respondent through impugned judgment. Aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal.

5. Castigating the impugned judgment learned AGA has argued that the learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution in correct perspective; that the findings are based on conjectures and surmises; that learned trial court has drawn wrong inferences with regard to delay in the FIR and motive for the crime, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent is bad in law and leave to appeal be granted.

6. On perusal of the record we find that there is no direct evidence of the crime and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Three circumstances have been alleged against the respondent, namely the motive, as accused-respondent wanted to install a charkhi on Gram Samaj land, which was being objected by the deceased; secondly, he was last seen in the company of the deceased on 26.9.2004 by witness Dharam Veer and lastly on 5.10.2004 the respondent got the dead body of the deceased recovered from a pond under the bushes of besharm.

7. In our country, law with regard to circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial is quite consistent for more than thirty years since the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 till a quite recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shyamal Saha & Anr. vs State Of West Bengal decided on 24 February, 2014, which state that the chain of events must be so complete as to leave no room for any other hypothesis except that the accused were responsible for the death of the victim.

8. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating evidence adduced by the prosecution has held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove motive against the accused-respondent. Two fold motive was attributed to the accused to eliminate the deceased along with one Sukesh, not charge-she