The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive establishment of each circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence, as governed by Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Five persons, namely, Dulal Ali, Mobin S/o Babu, Mobin S/o Yamin, Sagir Ahmad and Virendra Pal were charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer of Kashipur Police Station, District Udham Singh Nagar for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 394, 302 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code”1860, for brevity) in Case Crime/FIR No. 324 of 2008. Out of the above five persons Mobin S/o Yamin was found to be a juvenile. His case was taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar. Rest of the four accused persons faced the trial. Mobin S/o Babu was acquitted of all charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur. Similarly, Virendra Pal was acquitted of the charges under Sections 394 and 302 of the Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Kashipur, but he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Penal Code. The rest two accused persons, i.e., Sagir Ahamad and Dulal Ali were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 394, 302 and 411 and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code; they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment each for 10 years under section 394 of the Penal Code and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment each with fine and default stipulation for the offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code, by the learned Trial Court. The appellants have been so convicted under the Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur vide judgment dated 11.10.2014 and have been sentenced, as above.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 23.06.2008, at 6:15 A.M., Mr. K. C. Singh Baba, a Member of Parliament representing Nainital constituency filed a written report in the Kashipur Police Station to the effect that his Secretary Shri Ravi Shankar, has been missing since 22.06.2008 at about 9:00 PM. The said Ravi Shankar was carrying a mobile no. 9412088333, but the said mobile was found to be switched off. He was also having a Heero Honda Motor Cycle (C. D. Dawn numbered as U.A.06F-5985). Ravi Shanker had gone to meet Mr. Shri Joga Singh Chheena and was returning after meeting him and, thereafter, he has gone missing.

3. On the basis of the said report, on 23.06.2008, at about 6:15 AM, a criminal case was initiated for the offence under Section 365 of the Penal Code. On that night itself, the dead body of the deceased was found. As the motorcycle as well as the other belongings of the deceased were still missing and the deceased was found to have sustained injuries with sharp edged weapon, the case was turned into Sections 394 and 302 of the Pena Code. On 10.07.2008, Police received information that the accused persons were standing at Dhelapur. The Police apprehended the accused persons. On their indication (( fu'kkunsgh )), the weapons of the offence, the papers of the motorcycle as well as one diary belonging to the deceased was recovered. At the instance of Sagir Ahmad, the motorcycle was recovered and seized from the home of one of the accused Virendra Pal. The other documentations along with the certain papers like, letterhead of the informant were discovered from the house of the said Virendra Pal. Thus, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 394, 302 and 411 of the Penal Code and the accused persons faced the trial.

4. Accused Dulal Ali and Sagir Ahamd took the plea that they have falsely been implicated and the witnesses are deposing falsehood against them.

5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW1 K. C. Singh Baba is the complainant. PW2 Joga Singh is the person, whom the deceased went to