The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction in criminal cases, particularly where direct evidence is absent.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nitansh Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri O.P. Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred assailing the judgement and order dated 25.4.1984 passed by Officiating Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 205 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are further convicted and sentenced to undergo five years’ R.I. under Section 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, both the sentence shall run concurrently.

3. Vide order of this Court dated 2.2.2024, the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no. 2-Genda son of Baroo. Now, the appeal is surviving only in respect of appellant no. 1-Prem son of Genda.

4. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 2^nd of May 1981 at about 10 AM, three children, namely, Raj Kumar (aged about 2 year), Chandra Kiran (aged about 3 years)and Vishwas (aged about 6 years) were returning home after playing. When they reached near the house of accused Prem and Genda, they gave Laddu of white colour to each of the children. This incident was seen by two persons, namely, Nanu and Giana, whose house is near the accused’s house. When the children reached home, they fell and become unconscious. They were rushed to Primary Health Centre, Nanauta, where doctor after examining declared Chandra Kiran brought dead and found a case of suspected poisoning. He referred Raj Kumar and Vishwas to S.B.D. Hospital, Saharanpur and dead body of Chandra Kiran was sent for Post Mortem. Raj Kumar after being conscious returned to home with father Dharampal on whose information F.I.R. was registered.

5. On the basis of written report of the informant Dharampal, a first information report was registered on 2.5.1981 against the accused persons, as Case Crime no. 7 of 1981, under Section 302/34 and 334/34 IPC and investigation was started by the Investigating Officer, who investigated the matter and after concluding investigation submitted a chargesheet on 23.2.1982 against the accused persons. On being committed to the Court of Sessions, the accused were charged as above. The accused denied the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the prosecution case, PW-1 Dharmpal, PW-2 Nanu, PW-3 Bhanwar Singh, PW-4 Huram Singh, PW-5 Munna Singh, PW-6 Ram Prakash, PW-7 Gyana, PW-8 Vishwas, PW-9 Pritam Singh, PW-10 Naipal Singh, PW-11 Dr. A.L. Dheegra, PW-12 Dr. M.L. Ansari and PW-13 Dr. Anil Bhatnagar were examined and certain documents were exhibited before the Court concerned. In addition to this, the prosecution produced certain documents, which were exhibited during the trial as under:

(i) First information report as Ext. Ka-2

(ii) Written report as Ex. Ka-1

(iii) Injury report as Ex. Ka-15

(iv) Letter to Station Officer as Ext. Ka-17 and 18

(v) Post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-16

(vi) Chemical examination report as Ext. Ka-19 and 20

(vii) Panchayatnama as Ext. Ka-7

(viii) Chargesheet as Ext. Ka-14

7. Submission of Sri Nitansh Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence only and unless the chain of circumstances is so complete that it leaves no scope