Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of events that leads solely to the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, satisfying the five 'Panchsheel' principles of criminal jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

(1) Heard Sri Adarsh Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

(2) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 18.05.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C.Act, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.230/2007 (The State versus Vijai Nai and Three Others), arising out of Case Crime No.508/2006, under Sections 394, 302/34, 201, 411 Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred as IPC),Police Station Ganga Ghat, District Unnao, by means of which the appellant has been convicted under Section 394, 302/34, 201, 411 IPC, sentencing him life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 302 of IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 394 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment. It has further been provided that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed without considering the evidence and material on record appropriately. He further submitted that it was a case of circumstantial evidence and last seen, as there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the chain of circumstances is neither complete nor does it unerringly refer to the guilt of the appellant but the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by means of the impugned judgement and order. He further submitted that there was no motive against the appellant for committing the murder of driver and cleaner of the truck, specially when the grievance of the appellant could have been against the truck owner. He further submitted that the post mortem report has also not supported the prosecution case because as per the doctor, both the deceased died on account of strangulation and it was not possible for a single man to strangulate two persons at one time, that too, in a running truck. He further submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses of fact, but the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the same and wrongly and illegally relied on the evidence of such witnesses. He further submitted that recovery of jack and weapon of assault has not been proved and finger prints were also not taken from the recovered jack. He also submitted that though the truck was recovered but the scrap loaded in the truck was not recovered and the police has failed to recover the same. He further submitted that any of the family member of the victim has not been produced and it has not been clarified as to whether the d