For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete, coherent chain of circumstances excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. Heard Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Service Committee for arguing the appeal on behalf of appellant no.2, who has also been appointed as amicus curiae by this Court for arguing the appeal on behalf of appellant no. 3; Sri G. N. Kanojiya, learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the trial Court record as well as the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of sentence dated 24.09.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 1992, registered as Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1995 (State Vs. Anoop Singh and others), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted appellant Anoop Singh under Section 364 and 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him under Section 364 I.P.C. to undergo 10 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302/34 I.P.C. In case of default in the payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo additional sentence of three months. Appellants, Ram Kumar, Vinod and Balak Ram have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. In case of default in payment of fine, they have been sentenced to undergo additional sentence of three months.

3. Two appellants, namely appellant no.1, Balak Ram and appellant no.4, Vinod, died during the pendency of this appeal and the appeal qua them stood abated vide orders dated 11.01.2023 and 08.01.2026 respectively passed by this Court. The only surviving appellants are appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Anoop Singh and Ram Kumar, respectively.

4. The prosecution story in nutshell is as under:-

On 07.02.1992 at 6:00 am, Anoop Singh and Ram Kumar kidnapped Chandrapal @ Chandraprakash from the house of Baldev Singh situated in Mohalla Mahagarh, Police Station Mandi, District Saharanpur, with the intention to kill him and on 08.02.1992 at 01:00 pm, they murdered Chandrapal @ Chandraprakash near the Ballabhgarh railway station within the territory of police station Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad. The informant in the instant case is Baldev Singh who is brother of the deceased. He lodged F.I.R. in the police station on 12.02.1992, after which case was registered and investigation was conducted. The dead body of the deceased Chandraprakash was recovered near Ballabhgarh railway station.

5. During investigation of the present case, an inquest of the dead body was done, post-mortem was conducted and statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused persons were arrested. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against accused Anoop Singh, Ram Kumar, Vinod and Balak Ram and cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed under Sections 364, 302/34 I.P.C. All the accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

6. During the course of the trial as many as 12 prosecution witnesses were examined. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the appellants while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the incriminating circumstances and claimed that they had been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial judge convicted the appellants. Hence, this appeal.

8. Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that:-

(i) PW1 and PW2 were al