Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 13.06.2014 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) in S.T. No.240/2009, whereby the appellant Charan Singh, was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201, 394 and 411 IPC. Appellant Charan Singh was further charged for the offence punishable u/s 4/25 of the Arms Act in S.T. No.241 of 2009. The Trial Court convicted the accused u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. He was further convicted u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted u/s 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two years’ additional rigorous imprisonment. The accused was further convicted u/s 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted u/s 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo two years’ imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional imprisonment. All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the appellant has preferred only one appeal against the judgment rendered in S.T. No.240/2009 and S.T. No.241/2009.

2. Since the co-accused Pintu was minor on the date of incident, his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 24.2.2010.

3. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the FIR was lodged by PW1 Puran Singh, to the effect, that his father Ram Niwas and elder brother Raj Kumar were residing in the field of Gurnam Singh by constructing a hut. On 28.6.2009, when he went to meet his father and brother in the hut, they were not found. When he searched for them nearby, he came to know that his father and brother had returned on 24.6.2009 by selling the mangoes for Rs.40,000/-. Thereafter, in the evening, they had gone to stay in the hut of Charan Singh. They were seen by many people going towards the hut of Charan Singh. Then the complainant went to the hut of Charan Singh but nobody was found. It was revealed that Charan Singh along with his family had left for his village at Badayun. The missing report was, accordingly, lodged on 2.7.2009. On 3.7.2009, the complainant came to know that from the bushes in the plot of Nirmal Singh, a foul smell was emanating. He went to the spot and noticed two skeletons lying in the field. Their clothes and bicycle was also lying nearby. After seeing the clothes and bicycle, he recognized that those skeletons were of his father and brother. A sum of Rs.40,000/- was robbed from the deceased.

4. The matter was investigated and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

5. Prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case.

6. Appellant was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of prosecution.

7. Appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal.

8. Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Learned Sr. Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, has supported the judgment dated 13.6.2014.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record carefully.

11. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eyewitness of the occurrence. In order to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be compl