The judgment emphasizes the importance of a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga (Amicus Curiae) assisted by the Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Goswami learned Government Advocate.

2. This jail appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffarnagar, in Session Trial No. 854 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 7 of 2007, under Section 302 and 201 IPC, Thana - Bhaunrakala, District - Muzaffarnagar, wherein the appellant - Shaki- was tried and punished for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Under Section 302 IPC, the appellant was awarded life sentence and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In the event of non-deposit of fine, the appellant was to undergo further two years' of rigorous imprisonment and under Section 201 IPC, the appellant was to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- was also imposed. In the event of non-deposit of fine, the appellant was to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of three months. All the punishments were directed to run concurrently.

3. The father of the deceased Shiva had lodged a first information report on 24.1.2007 alleging that his son Shiva, aged about five years, on the previous day i.e. 23.1.2007, at around 4-5pm, was seen with the appellant - Shaki s/o Somdatt Harijan. It has been alleged in the first information report that when the son of the first informant had not returned, then the first informant tried to search for his son and when the son of the first informant and the accused were not found till the morning of the next day, a first information report was lodged. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that the first informant along with other villagers had commenced a search in the adjoining jungle and then in the sugar cane field of one Satendra s/o Kitepal, the dead body of his son was found buried in a pit which was covered with mud. However, his legs were protruding out. In the first information report itself, the first informant had alleged that the accused had a motive to kill the son of the appellant as earlier the appellant had done some dirty work with Deepak, another son of the first informant who was elder to the one who had died. Since the first informant had, two or three days prior, threatened the appellant with dire consequences, the appellant had taken a revenge. He had also stated in the F.I.R. that when the appellant had taken away his son Shiva, his brother Satyaveer and certain other villagers had also seen the appellant taking the boy with him. He stated that the body of his child Shiva had been exhumed from where the accused-appellant had buried him and the dead body was lying over there. He, therefore, had prayed that the State might proceed against the accused-appellant and take action for the commission of the crime. Thereafter, when the first information report was lodged on 24.1.2007, the police started the investigation. Amongst other investigations, postmortem was also done on the body of the deceased. Thereafter, the Police submitted a charge sheet and upon the submission of the charge sheet, the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffarnagar, framed charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 read with Section 201 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial.

4. From the side of the prosecution, P.W. - 1, i.e. the first informant, was examined, Satyaveer, the brother of the first informant was examined as P.W. - 2, the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem was examined as P.W.- 3, the P.W. - 4 Vijendra Singh was the signatory on the Punchnama, the P.W. - 5 & 6 were the investigating officers who had conducted the investigation and the P.W. 7 was the chik writer who was produced to prove the chik.

5. From the defence side, no one was produced. However, the appellant was confronted with certain questions and situations under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which questions were, however,