The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The judgment also highlighted the admissibility requirements for electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. The appellants Jayendra Singh Maurya and Mukesh Kumar have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 394 and 411 IPC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Penal Code’, for brevity), and sentenced them to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation; five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 IPC with default stipulation; one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 411 IPC with default stipulation.

2. The appellants Jayendra Singh Maurya and Mukesh Kumar having been convicted under Sections 302, 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have challenged their conviction and sentence of imprisonment for offence under Sections 302/34, 394 and 411 IPC by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 188 of 2006.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.04.2006, the complainant Vishal Anand S/o Shri Preetam Singh, R/o of Vindsar Academy, Bhadaeepura, Kichha Road, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar submitted a written FIR before the Police Station Kichha that the applicant’s school ‘The Archard Awas Vikas’ is in Kichha’. On 19.07.2006, the complainant Vishal Anand had given work of chowkidar (Guard) to one Arjun Kumar S/o late Sohan Lal in the school as his old chowkidar had gone to his home on leave. On 28.04.2006 morning at 7:00, the complainant’s Driver Veerpal S/o Ram Bharose went to the school in order to bring a Maruti Van, then he found the school gate to be locked. He called the deceased and knocked the door but did not get any answer. Out of suspicion, he called the complainant. The complainant arrived at the school and found that the school gate was locked from outside. Then he asked to driver to scale over and inter in the school wherefrom he found that the deceased has been murdered. On the basis of such FIR (Ext.A-12) was registered.

After registration of the FIR, the investigating officer took up investigation of the case. In course of investigation, he held inquest of the dead body of the deceased, seized material objects from the spot, sent the dead body for post mortem examination, recorded statements of the material witnesses, arrested the accused and on their discovery statements he recovered one mobile phone and one inverter battery. Finding a prima facie case, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 302/34, 394 and 411 of the penal code.

The appellants took the plea of simple denial and false implication by the prosecution. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. The prosecution also relied upon several documents. The defence taking the plea of alibi and two witnesses were examined on its behalf.

4. The prosecution in this case relied only on circumstantial evidences. The three circumstances that have been argued to have been relied and accepted as such by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are follows :

(i) The homicidal death of the deceased.

(ii) The recovery of the mobile phone on the recovery statement of the appellant no.1 Jayendra Singh Maurya and,

(iii) The recovery of inverter battery from the joint statements of both the appellants Jayendra Singh Maurya and Mukesh Kumar.

5. In assailing the conviction of the appellants, Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in this case, the circumstances have not established fully and a chain of circumstances is not forming to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He also submitted that the recovery statements and the recovery of the mobile-phone as well as the battery are also not fully established to make it admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the A