The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable witnesses, corroboration of evidence, and a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

ORDER :

Vivek Varma, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.1984 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 36 of 1982 convicting the appellants Chhabboo Lal, Modi and Mishrilal under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 IPC.

2. The prosecution case states that Sri Chandrama Singh (P.W.-9) submitted a written report (Ex-Ka-6) at P.S. Ghoorpur on 5.9.1981 with assertion that his cousin brother Sheo Sagar Singh @ Matar Singh (deceased), resident of village Neebi, P.S. Ghoorpur, District Allahabad on 3.9.1981 left his home in the afternoon for Sewar, but did not return. It came to his knowledge that on the same day at about 3 p.m., deceased was seen with Mishrilal at his house along with accused Chhabbu Lal and Modi. He suspected that Sheo Sagar Singh @ Matar Singh has been killed by the accused appellants and thereafter the dead body has been removed. As per the details given the deceased was wearing a white sando vest and a white pyjama.

3. The First Information Report (Ex-ka-9) was lodged on 5.9.1981 at about 21.45 P.M. at Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet (Ex-Ka 22) on 21.10.1981 against the accused/appellants under sections 302, 201, 120 B IPC. The trial court framed the charges and charged the appellants Chhabboo Lal and Modi with the commission of offences under Section 302, 201 IPC while the appellant Mishrilal was charged under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 201 IPC. On denial of charges by the accused trial commenced.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the incriminating evidence adduced against them during the course of trial, which they denied and pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The trial Court after examining the evidence available on record found that the circumstantial evidence available on record makes a chain of events that indicate definite involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question and by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants Chhabboo Lal, Mishrilal and Modi. Hence this appeal at the behest of convicted accused persons.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no eyewitness account of the incident and the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence but none of the circumstances from which inference of guilt can be drawn has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged confession made by the appellant Chhabboo before P.W.-4 Gajraj Singh is not corroborated by other cogent and reliable evidence and the recovery of dead body and seizure of various articles were not in accordance with law.

7. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the submission of the appellants and supporting the impugned judgment submitted that chain of circumstances established on basis of adequate evidence clearly indicates involvement of the accused appellant in committing the crime in question. It is pointed out that the accused appellants committed the murder of Sheo Sagar Singh and threw his body. The dead body and several articles were discovered at the pointing out of the accused appellants. All these circumstances have adequately been established by the prosecution evidence which is sufficient to prove involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question.

8. Heard learned counsels for the appellants, learned AGA and scanned the entire record and considered the arguments advanced.

9. The case of the prosecution consisted of following circumstances:-

(i) evidence of last seen of the deceased Shiv Sagar Singh in the company of the appellants,

(ii) extra judicial confession of the appellant Chhabboo Lal, and

(iii) discovery of incriminating