The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Pritinker Diwaker, J.

1. This jail appeal arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. 1, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 2014 arising out of Crime No. 473 of 2014 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months additional imprisonment; under Section 201 of I.P.C. to undergo five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof, to undergo two months additional imprisonment, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. As per prosecution case, on 15.06.2014, one unknown dead body was found in a sugar-cane field and later, on the basis of clothes, the same was identified to be that of the deceased Ram Kishore. Further case of the prosecution is that on 13.06.2014, the deceased informed his family members that he would be returning on 13.06.2014. He further informed that he is in the company of the appellant. FIR was registered against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

3. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted, vide Ex. Ka-7/3 on 15.06.2014 and the body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted vide Ex.Ka.-5 on 15.06.2014 by Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-4) and the cause of death was strangulation as a result of anti mortem injuries. The following injuries have been found on the body of the deceased:

“1. A ligature mark with ligature on all around neck horizontally in two round, Ligature 42 cm long 4 cm width,

Ligature tied on neck 4 cm below each side horizontally from right & left ear, 4 cm below from chin in 5 cm width.

2. Contusion on chest upto nipple of both sides starting from upper back of neck and shoulder.”

4. After investigation charge-sheet, Ex.Ka.-20 was filed and the appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 302, 201 & 404 of IPC.

5. So as to hold the accused appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 9 prosecution witnesses. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which, he pleaded his innocence and false implication.

6. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Judge has convicted the appellant as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of this judgement, however, has acquitted him under Section 404 of I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits:

(i) that there is no eye witness account of the incident and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence.

(ii) that even the dead body of the deceased has not been properly identified and the same has been identified only on the basis of his clothes.

(iii) that one bag and slipper of the deceased are alleged to have been seized at the instance of the appellant and even wife of the deceased, Ram Pyari (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case, so far as it relates to the seizure.

(iv) that the appellant is in jail since 22.06.2014.

8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by the State counsel that conviction of the appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. From the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that but for the so-called evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the appellant. Even the evidence of last seen has not been proved by the prosecution as required under the law.

11. Circumstantial evidence available on record is not good enough to hold the conviction of the accused-appellants. Law in respect of circumstantial evidence is very clear.

12. In Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210, the Supreme Court, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, observed as under:

“11. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 343], which is one of the