The sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, motive, abscondence, and recovery of evidence, in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.)

1. As both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 11.1.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track, Court No.3, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 903 of 2005 and Sessions Trial No.1010 of 2005, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.876 of 2010 have been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 11.1.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.903 of 2005 and Sessions Trial No.1010 of 2005 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default six months additional simple imprisonment.

3. We have heard Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals; and Sri H.M.B.Sinha, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

4. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 12.3.2005 at about 22.30 hours, Narayan Singh (PW-1) lodged FIR of the present case under Section 302 IPC against appellants at Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh vide Case Crime No. 193 of 2005 with the allegation that in the evening of 12.3.2005, at about 7.30 PM, the appellants took away his son Suresh @ Sanju (deceased) and they returned back at about 8.30 PM without the deceased; and that when they were asked about the deceased, they provided no satisfactory answer. As a result, the informant (PW-1) along with his sons Mukesh Kumar (PW-2), Pawan (PW-3) and others made a search for the deceased. On search, dead body of the deceased was found, at about 9.00 PM, in the wheat field of Vijai Pal. The body had several visible injuries. In the FIR it was alleged that informant's son Suresh @ Sanju was murdered by the appellants. The motive disclosed in the FIR was that the accused (appellants) had suspicion that the deceased was in an illicit relationship with Vimlesh, the sister of Dinesh (appellant of Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2010).

5. After FIR, during the course of investigation, on 13.3.2005, the Investigating Officer prepared a recovery memo (Ex. Ka-3) with regard to a love letter (material Ext.1) from the wallet of deceased found in his pocket. This letter is alleged to have been written by Vimlesh, the sister of Dinesh (appellant of Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2010). The Investigating Officer also recovered cash of Rs. 154/-from the wallet of the deceased, which was handed over to the mother of the deceased in respect of which, a separate recovery memo (Ex. Ka2) was prepared. On the same day i.e., on 13.3.2005, one 'Lota', Glass (Tumbler) and slippers were also recovered from the place of the incident in respect of which, the Investigating Officer prepared a recovery memo (Ex. Ka-4). Recovery memo (Ex. Ka-5) was with regard to recovery of bloodstained and plain soil.

6. During investigation, on 1.4.2005 co-accused Bhoora (appellant no.2 of Criminal Appeal No.876 of 2010) was taken to police custody remand and on his pointing out bloodstained rope and a wooden stick (danda) was recovered from near a temple in respect of which, the Investigating Officer prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka-8). After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants on which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The trial court framed charges on 15.12.2005 against the appellants. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

7. During trial, prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 (Narayan Singh ), PW-2 (Mukesh Kumar) and PW-3 (Pawan) are the witnesses of fact whereas rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses. After recording the prosecution evidence, trial court examined the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and convicted them under Section 302 IPC on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that without a proper apprecia