For circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish a complete chain of events consistent only with guilt, leaving no room for reasonable doubt regarding innocence.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2017, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kanpur Dehat, in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2013 ( State vs. Rasheed and Another ), arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2013, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Dehat, whereby the accused appellants Rasheed and Buddhu @ Yunus have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.25,000/- each under Section 302 IPC and on failure to deposit fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a year each; 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- each under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and on failure to deposit the fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a year each and 3 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 201 IPC and on failure to deposit the fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three months each. Sentences are to run concurrently.

2. Deceased in this case is the granddaughter of informant Smt.Kammo, whose dead body was found in a drain behind Saluja Cold Storage on 27.02.2013. The exact time when the dead body was recovered is not known. A first information report came to be lodged at 12.15 P.M. on 27.02.2013, as per which the deceased had gone with informant to Village Rahmat Nagar in the marriage of one Naffar D/o Rukhsar. The victim was seen during the marriage festivity till 10.00-10.30 in the night and had disappeared thereafter. The informant alleged that deceased has been done to death by accused Rasheed S/o Sayid and Buddhu s/o Ismail, R/o Rahmatnagar, Police State Chaubeypur. The prosecution case relies upon testimony of four witnesses, namely Kammo (PW1), who happens to be the grandmother of the deceased; Layik (PW2), father of the deceased; Sartaj (PW3), who happens to be the brother-in-law of the informant, inasmuch as wife of Sartaj is the real sister of PW1. The fourth witness in this case is Harishchandra (PW4). It has come in evidence that Harishchandra has given his land on lease to Sartaj for the purposes of cultivation etc. The other witnesses include Dr. Jaiprakash (PW5), who is the autopsy surgeon, while Kashmir Singh (PW6) is the Head Moharrir. PW7 Udai Pratap is the first Investigating Officer, while PW8 Bhimsen is the second Investigating Officer, who has submitted the chargesheet in the case.

3. During the investigation the clothes worn by the deceased were found at some distance from the place where her dead body was lying and such recovered clothes have been exhibited as Ex.Ka-6 during the trial. Slippers worn by the deceased have also been recovered during investigation and exhibited as Ex.Ka-7 during the trial. It is the prosecution case that slippers have been recovered on the joint pointing out of the two accused appellants, namely Rasheed and Buddhu.

4. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the prime evidence led by the prosecution against the two accused appellants is in the nature of testimony of PW3 and PW4, who allege that they saw the deceased being taken by the two accused in the night. PW3 and PW4, therefore, are witnesses of last seen. The other circumstance against the accused appellants is in the nature of recovery of slippers of deceased on the joint pointing out of PW3 and PW4. The motive attributed to the accused appellants is that the appellant Rasheed was objecting to the sale of house in favour of the informant. Specific details in respect of transaction, h