The judgment underscores the requirement for the prosecution to fully establish the circumstances of guilt, including motive, consistency with the hypothesis of guilt, and a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 1, Hapur in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Saleem and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 498 of 2016, Police Station-Garh Mukhteshwar, District-Hapur whereby the appellant was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of non-deposit of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year and further three years simple imprisonment under Section 201 IPC along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

3. The co-accused of the appellant Smt. Sanjoo was acquitted of the charge. The case as set up by the prosecution, based on the statement of informant- P.W.-1 Seoraj Singh is that he had a son namely Kuldeep (since deceased) who was married with Sanjoo daughter of Vijay Pal in the year 2002. Out of this wedlock, four children were born. Appellant Saleem is resident of Narangpur and used to visit the house of his son. Saleem had developed illicit relationship with Smt. Sanjoo. The informant and his son Kuldeep used to protest in this regard. On 21/22.11.2016, Kuldeep and his wife Sanjoo had exchanged hot words and even had a scuffle with each other. On 25.11.2016, at about 11 AM Kuldeep told the informant that his wife is not mending her ways and therefore, he is going to police station to lodge complaint. On this, Smt. Sanjo and appellant Saleem felt sorry and promised that nothing of such type will happen in future. On next date, i.e. 26.11.2016 at about 2.00 PM, when informant and one Tilakram, Municipal Councillor, who is also resident of the vicinity of appellant were standing near Ambedkar Gate, he saw that his son Kuldeep was going along with appellant Saleem. Informant asked him where he is going along with Saleem, upon this his son told him that they are going for some important work and he will return by the evening. When his son did not return in the evening, he visited house of his daughter-in-law Sanjoo and asked about the whereabouts of Kuldeep. Sanjoo said that he will return back, but thereafter, son of the informant did not return back. He along with other family members started searching for him. When he along with his family members put pressure on Sanjoo, she informed that she is going to police station for lodging a missing report of Kuldeep. In the meantime, informant was searching his son Kuldeep. Thereafter, he came to know through a newspaper that in the intervening night of 26/27.11.2016 body of an unknown man was found by the police on the back side of Rahi Hotel along with the railway line. In this regard, the police of police station Brij Ghat had initiated the proceedings. Informant along with his other son Vijay Pal, Tilakram (Municipal Councillor) and son-in-law Ajeet and some other family members and resident of his area went to Police Station-Brij Ghat. The police informed that a dead body was found on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2016 near the railway line. They opened a parcel and asked them to identify the clothes upon which they identified that these were the clothes of his son Kuldeep. They were also shown the photographs of the deceased and some pamphlets. They had every reason to believe that the deceased was his son Kuldeep. The informant told the police that he has every reason to believe that murder of his son Kuldeep is committed by Saleem and his daughter-in-law Sanjoo and in order to mislead, his dead body was thrown near the railway line. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR under Section 302, 201, 120 B IPC was registered on 02.12.2016 and the