The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, and failure to conduct essential forensic tests, such as DNA, undermines the case against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Upon the disappearance of one Salman on 6.11.2011, a Gumshudgi/missing report was got reported by his father Shamim S/o Bundu Hasan. In the Gumshudgi report, it was stated that the younger son of Shamim had, from his telephone number 8126580512, rung up the missing son of Shamim at his phone number 8126573540 and the missing son- Salman had informed the son who had rung up that he was at Sidki, Saharanpur and he would be reaching in half an hour. However, when Salman did not reach his house, the Gumshudgi Report was got reported on 07.11.2011. This was exhibited as 'Exhibit Ka-2'. When, however, a search was made and Salman was not found then on 15.11.2011 a First Information Report was got lodged by the father of the missing son. It was categorically stated that the son of the first informant had left the house on his Tempo No.UP 11 T 5974 on 06.11.2011 in the morning and had gone to Saharanpur for the purpose of carrying passengers. It had further been stated that as per the missing report at about 11.00 A.M. on 06.11.2011, the missing son Salman had stated that he was in Sidki, Saharanpur and would come back in about half an hour. But when he did not come back by that time then, the first informant along with his relatives and acquaintances tried to search him out. In the First Information Report itself, there was an averment that the first informant was doubting that certain miscreants had kidnapped his son Salman for the purposes of murdering him. The First Information Report was lodged u/s 364 I.P.C. which gave rise to Case Crime No. 363 of 2011. The scribe of first informant was one Mohd. Mehtab. Thereupon, the investigation commenced on 27.11.2011. Akram, one of the accused was arrested at around 11.30 AM, and, from his possession, a mobile phone was also recovered. However, on the arrest, the accused Akram had stated that he had kidnapped the son of the first informant Salman with the help of his Jija known by the name of Shameen on 06.11.2011 and they together had hidden the dead body in Village Korwal Alampur, Police Station- Bhabreda, District- Haridwar, Uttarakhand by the side of a canal in an agricultural field and the mobile phone had been retained by the accused. Thereafter on 27.11.2011 after the arrest of Akram, arrest memo was prepared and it was exhibited as 'Exhibit Ka-5'. Thereafter, on 02.12.2011, the accused Shameem was also arrested and from his possession also a mobile phone was recovered and was retained with the police and the recovery memo of it was prepared as 'Exhibit Ka-9'.During the preparation of both the recovery memos vis-a-vis accused Akram and Shamim, no independent witness of the area was present.

2. On the information given by arrested persons- Akram and Shamim, the weapon by which the alleged murder had taken place i.e. the iron rod of around two Baalisht (around 18 inches) was also recovered. This recovery was also done without the presence of any independent witness. Thereafter, the Tempo No. UP 11 T 5974 was also recovered on 15.11.2011 and the recovery memo with regard to it was prepared as 'Exhibit Ka-18'. Thereafter, it appears that a search was made by the police of the dead body and after quite sometime on 27.11.2011, after its recovery, the inquest report was got prepared. The dead body was found in a sugarcane field. Here, it may be stated that the dead body which was found by the police was nothing else but a collection of bones. It was only a skeleton. There was no flesh found on it and the inquest report, which was prepared on 27.11.2011 in t