In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must ensure a complete chain of events. Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires explicit disclosure, and the test identification parade must be conducted without prior exposure of the accused to witnesses to remain admissible.

JUDGMENT :

Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.

1. The trial of the accused persons-Ajaypal, Ahlakar, and Awdhesh was conducted jointly under Sessions Trial Nos. 28 of 2003 and 28-B of 2003 and the trial of the accused Pawan was conducted under Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2003, in connection with Case Crime No. 86 of 2002 under Sections 364-A, 302, and 201 IPC. Additionally, separate trials were conducted for the accused Awdhesh under Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 109/02, under Section 25 Arms Act), and for the accused Ajaypal under Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2003, Case Crime No. 125 of 2002, under Section 25 Arms. Act); these proceedings were based on the charge sheets submitted to the court by the police of Police Station Deoria Kalan, District Pilibhit. Since all the above cases are related to the same prosecution and the entire prosecution evidence has been presented by the prosecution in the case file pertaining to Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2003, (State vs Jugendra Singh & Ors).

2. Vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Pilibhit, the charges levelled against accused persons Ahalkar, Awadhjesh Gujar and Pawan Kumar U/s 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and separate charge sheet submitted against accused Awadhesh U/s 25 of the Arms Act were not substantiated by the evidence available on record and in absence of solid and credible evidence, the accused persons Ahaklar, Pawan Kumar, Awadhesh Gujar were acquitted of the charges levelled against them having been given benefit of doubt. The accused Ajaypal was found guilty U/s 364A, 302 and 201 IPC as well as charge U/s 25 of the Arms Act. Hence the instant appeal is preferred by accused/appellant Ajaypal only.

3. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee, Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the trial court record and also judgment of the trial court.

4. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 28 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 86/02) under Sections 364A/302/201 IPC. ST No. 28B of 2003 (Case Crime No. 86/02) U/s 364A/302/201 & ST No. 31/03 (Case Crime No. 125/02), U/s 25 Arms Act, P.S. Deoria Kalan, District - Pilibhit (State Vs. Ajay Pal) convicting the appellant for an offence, U/s 364A IPC for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment 3 years additional imprisonment, U/s 302 IPC for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment 3 years additional R.I., U/s 201 IPC for imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs., 2000/- in default of payment one-year additional R.I. and U/s 25 of Arms Act for imprisonment of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment 6 months additional R.I. All the sentences will run concurrently.

5. Prosecution case in nutshell is as follows: -

(i) The complainant Ramesh Chandra Gupta has given a written complaint (Ex-ka-1) to the SHO, PS- Deoria Kalan, to the effect that on 21.03.02, at 4.30 pm, his brother, Suresh Chand Gupta was returning home from Bhatta (brick kiln) on his Hero Honda motorcycle. On the way, at the canal bridge of Bada gaon, a white coloured Maruti van bearing number UP 14/9119 was parked there, three men and a woman with short hair cut came out of the Van and they stopped his brother and took him