The judgment establishes the importance of a complete chain of evidence and a clear motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlights the significance of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and the need for a thorough investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2015 and 07.09.2015 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 154 of 2009 arising out of Crime No. 439 of 2007 under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. at P.S.-Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and have also awarded fine of Rs.20,000/- each in default thereof, 6 months additional imprisonment is awarded against them. It is further directed that all the sentences awarded against them are run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that the informant had kept the criminal machinery into motion after the learned Magistrate passed orders under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The informant belonged to Ghatampur, District-Kanpur Nagar. He had a brother Kalicharan who was unmarried and was staying with the informant and the informant used to look after him. On 2nd of December 2006 an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was given, however the death had occurred much before that and the post mortem report is of 10th November 2006. After an order under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C the police proceeded to treat it as an FIR but before that police had already started investigation. The incident occurred on 9/10.11.2006. Apart from this the informant informed that his brother Kalicharan who was unmarried from the beginning was staying with the informant. The informant had gone to his another daughter on 9.9.2006 and that time Kalicharan, Rajesh, Lotan, Ram Babu, Phul Singh kidnapped his brother Kalicharan despite protest of his other dauther Prema and did not permit her to meet his brother Kalicharan. Kalicharan was about 85 years of age and he was not mentally stable. The informant had a fear that the accused and the other persons may not by force make Kalicharan enter into an agreement of sale for which the informant had moved to the Civil Judge and also got it published in the news papers. It is informed that after Kalicharan was abducted he was kept at an unknown place. The informant tried to search for his brother but he could not find him. On 28.9.2006 the accused after threatening his brother got a forged agreement to sale. On 9/10.11.2006 at night so that Kalicharan may reveal that the agreement to sale was entered into by coercion they administered poison and he died. On coming to know about the death of his brother the informant informed the nearby chowki and post mortem and panchayatnama were prepared but the G.D. entry never culminated into FIR for the reasons best known to the police authorities and the accused were neither napped nor the FIR was lodged. He had strong belief that all the accused had killed his brother. A letter was even written to the Superintendent of Police on 15.11.2006 of Kanpur Nagar by registered post A.D. but his report has not culminated into any further investigation. This was treated as an FIR much after the investigation had started and post mortem was already with the police, panchayatnama was also prepared. The informant had moved the learned Judge on 2.12.2006 who kept the matter pending and after a long duration directed inquiry under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

3. Pursuant to the said FIR the police submitted the charge sheet before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The accused being summoned was committed to the Court of Sessions as the case was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

4. The accused on being read over the charge with commission of offence under Section 147, 302/149, 368/364 I.P.C. On 24.7.2010 pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

5. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges, examined 8 witnesses, namely:-