The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of a complete chain of circumstances in establishing guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and the limitations of motive as a ground for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Akash Deep Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State on admission of the appeal and perused the record.

2. The respondents-accused were charged for committing an offence under Section 364, 302 and 201 IPC in Case Crime No.56 of 2012, P.S. South, District, Firozabad.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 07.01.2012, the informant Noor Fatima gave a typed information to the Superintendent of Police, firozabad stating that her son Furkan had enticed away Sindal daughter of Late Khalil and had married her after running away from the home. Danish (respondent no.2) brother of Sindal used to keep animosity from the informant’s son and Danish forcibly took away his sister Sindal from the informant’s house. Thereafter he got a forged Talaknama prepared. It is alleged that Danish used to beat and threaten the informant’s son. On 1.1.2012 at about 08:00 P.M., informant’s son Furkan received a call on his mobile no. 7417110595 and when she asked her son that who had made phone call, she said that Zubair alias Chapta (respondent no.3) had made the phone call and he left home. Nadeem son of Manjoor and Irfan son of Zahid had seen Furkan with Zubair alias Chapta at Urvashi Chauraha at 08:30 P.M. and Danish was also standing there at a short distance. Since then informant’s son did not return home. The informant alleged that Danish and Zubair alias Chapta have abducted her son along with their companions and they have killed her son. During trial, as many as nine witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case. Accused produced Mohd. Monis as D.W.-1. The learned Trial Court has stated that as the case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the murder assumes much significance. The informant Noor Fatima (P.W.1) has stated in the FIR that her son had enticed away and married Danish’s sister Sindal and due to this Danish used to keep animosity against Furkan. Danish is a man of criminal nature. Along with his accomplices, Danish threatened and forcibly took away Sindal from the informant’s house and he got a fictious Talaknama prepared. However, in her cross examination, P.W.1 stated that Danish or any member of his family did not register any case against Furkan. She expressed ignorance regarding whether both the families were at talking terms or whether there was any tension between their families.

4. Analyzing the statements of the witnesses to ascertain the motive for committing the offence, the learned Trial Court held that as the informant herself stated that Danish had pressurized his sister and she had been taken away to her home, the motive for murder could have vanished. But at this stage it cannot be denied that he might be having some annoyance for the reasons that the deceased had taken away his sister and had married her. Therefore, Danish had a motive to kill the deceased.

5. The deceased is said to have gone missing on 01.01.2012 and the informant reported matter to the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad on 07.01.2012. The Superintendent of Police instructed the Sub-Inspector concerned to lodge an FIR on the same day. Even after the superintendent of Police had issued a direction for lodging the FIR on 07.01.2012 and had handed over the application to the informant herself, she did not go to the police station till as late as on 15.01.2012. The explanation given by the informant that the accused persons used to threaten her, was not found to be believable as she clearly stated that she kept on visiting the police station and when the police did not register her report, she had submitted the application to the Superintendent of Police. Taking into consideration all these facts, the learned court below recorded a finding that in spite of the Superintendent of Police having issued a direction for registration of the FIR on 07.01.2012, the failure of the informant to lodge the FIR for eight more d