The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for corroboration and scrutiny of extrajudicial confessions, emphasizing their weaknesses as evidence and the potential for discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2012 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in S.T. No.258 of 2008, whereby the respondent Bhoop Singh @ Pinky, who was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C., was acquitted.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the FIR was lodged on 22.5.2008 by PW1 Lalit Kumar, to the effect, that his father was a doctor. On 21.5.2008, at 9:30 A.M., his father, as usual, had gone to his clinic at Kanaura. His father used to return home by 10-10:30 PM. On that day, when his father did not return till 12 midnight, he came at the clinic of is father, which was closed. On making enquiry, it was revealed that his father did not even open the clinic on that day. His father’s motorcycle was found parked on the way leading to Harlalpur Village. Thereafter, the dead body of his father was recovered in a plastic bag.

3. The first information report was accordingly registered. Dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. The matter was investigated and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

4. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

5. Respondent no.2 was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of prosecution.

6. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent no.2 at the end of trial. Hence this appeal by the complainant.

7. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant as well as learned State Counsel have vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent no.2 beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent no.2, has supported the judgment dated 28.01.2012.

9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and lower court record very carefully.

10. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete. All the circumstances must point exclusively towards the guilt of the accused.

11. PW1 Lalit Kumar testified that his father was a doctor. He used to leave the house at 9:30 A.M. His father left the house on his motorcycle in the morning of 21.5.2008 towards his Clinic. His father did not return till 11-11:30 PM. He went to the clinic of his father. The mobile phone of his father was switched off. The clinic was closed. He enquired from the people residing nearby. He was told that his father had not opened the clinic on that day. Thereafter, he found the motorcycle of his father at a secluded place. The dead body of his father was recovered at a distance of 100 meters from Shiv Temple. He further deposed that on 20.5.2008, a religious function was held in his house. Family of respondent no.2 had not attended the ceremony. The respondent no.2 was arrested on 7.6.2008. The respondent no.2 got the key of motorcycle recovered. A revolver was also recovered at the instance of respondent no.2.

12. PW2 Tika Ram has admitted that he knew the respondent no.2. He was also known as ‘Pinky’. He has signed the inquest report of recovery of dead body. He testified that on 6.6.2008, he had gone to Village Kanaura. He had gone to the house of his brother-in-law Shiv Kumar. He was sitting there. In the meantime, respondent no.2 came at 11 AM and told Shiv Kumar that he wanted to say something to him. He pondered for some time and thereafter confessed that he had committed some wrongful act. He has killed his uncle Gainda Lal by hitting him with a wooden plank and shooting him with his father’s revolver. Police was chasing him. He was frightened. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 left the spot. He shared the meals with Shiv Kumar and thereafter, they went to the police station. The key of motorcycle and revolver were got recovered in his presence.

13. PW3 Shiv Kumar is the brother of deceased. He testified that on 21.5.2008, his brother did not r