The court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances must be established, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No.1580 of 2008 (State vs. Sattar), arising out of Case Crime No. 695 of 2008, Police Station Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 363 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC with default clause. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story, as culled out from the record, is that a missing report Ext. ka-1 in respect of missing of Ummed, aged about 4 years, son of Momin since 10.5.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. was reported at P.S. Kotwali Shamli on 14.5.2008, which was registered at Ext. ka-5. Subsequently, another application Ext. ka-2 was given by the informant at P.S. Shamli alleging therein that his missing son was last seen in the company of Sattar son of Abbas by Shamshad and Lilu on 10.5.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. During investigation, accused Sattar was arrested by the police and on his pointing-out from a sugar cane field one skeleton of deceased Ummed was retrieved by the police on 16.5.2008. The Investigating Officer performed necessary formalities during investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses as well. The recovered skeleton was sent for inquest and post mortem and after completion of investigation charge sheet under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC was submitted against accused Sattar. The case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of sessions where charges under Sections 363, 302 and 201 IPC were framed on 25.2.2009 against the accused, who denied all the charges and claimed for trial.

3. To bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.-1 Momin - informant/father of the deceased, P.W.-2 Lilu, the witness of last seen, P.W.-3 Ajay Prakash, scribe, P.W.-4 Dr. Pankaj Jain, P.W.-5 Shyam Pratap, the first Investigating Officer, P.W.-6 S.H.O. Brijpal Singh, the second Investigating Officer and PW-7 Dr. V.V. Bhargav, radiologist.

4. In order to corroborate the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution has also relied upon the documentary evidence as written report Ext. ka-1, application moved by the informant Ext. ka-2, recovery memo Ext. ka-3, G.D. Ext. ka-4, chik F.I.R. Ext. ka-5, post mortem report Ext. ka-6, report regarding skeleton Ext ka-7, letter to C.M.O. Ext. ka-8, inquest report Ext. ka-9, letter R.I. Ext. ka-10, letter C.M.O. Ext. ka-11, photo nash Ext. ka-12, form no. 13 Ext. ka-13, site plan Ext. ka-14, charge sheet Ext. ka-15, G.D. dated 16.5.2006 Ext. ka-16, x-ray report Ext. ka-17, FSL report Ext. ka-18 and recovery memo Ext. ka-3A and material Ext. 1 to 7 have also been proved in evidence.

5. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to him wherein he claimed the prosecution evidence as false and fabricated and denied to adduce any defence evidence, however, Sabir was himself produced as DW-1.

6. PW-1 Momin, the informant/father of the deceased child in his evidence proves the missing report as Ext. ka- 1 and other written report naming the accused Sattar as Ext. ka-2. He is also a witness of recovery of skeleton and clothings of his son and proves it as Ext. ka-3 and further before the Court he proves the incriminating materials as material Ext. 1 to 5.

7. PW-2 Lilu is the witness of last seen together and he in his evidence