The judgment establishes the importance of conclusive and credible evidence in criminal cases, the admissibility of confession, the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle that suspicion cannot take the place of proof.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 31.10.2013, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2006, “State vs. Vikas Kathait”, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.60,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”), and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that on 04.08.2006, one Shiv Prasad Singh (PW1) informed the Police Chowki I.D.P.L. through telephone no.2454100 that opposite to Gali No.5, nearby the railway track, a dead body of an unknown person is lying, which is in nude condition and headless. On the said information, Sub-Inspector Sheeshpal (PW17) along with Head Constable Dalbir Singh, Constable Vijay Kumar and Constable Praveen Kumar left for the spot. The higher officers were given information through telephone and RT set. The said information was entered in General Dairy No.11 at 9 o’clock and a Case No.98 of 2006 was registered against unknown person. Sub-Inspector Sheeshpal Singh inspected the spot. The inquest proceedings of headless body of the deceased was conducted on 04.08.2006 (inquest report Ext. Ka7). Manoj Uniyal (PW2) identified the dead body as his friend Deepak Badoni. The head of the deceased was found on 06.08.2006. The inquest proceeding of the head was conducted on 06.08.2006 (inquest report Ext. Ka22). The post-mortem examination of the headless dead body was conducted on 04.08.2006 and the post-mortem examination of the head of the deceased was conducted on 06.08.2006.

3. During the investigation, it came to knowledge that Vikas Kathait alias Vikki R/o Dhalwala is suspect, as an agreement had been entered into between Vikas Kathait and the deceased Deepak Badoni as regards transaction of money, in which Vikas Kathait had to pay Rs.75,000/- to the deceased. On the basis of suspicion, the appellant was searched and arrested on 06.08.2006.

4. The appellant confessed his guilt. The confessional statement of the appellant led to the recovery of a pant, a shirt, a handkerchief, a belt, shoes of the deceased and a Kukri, a sharp edged weapon, used in the crime. The recovered articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellant identified the head of the deceased. During the investigation, the name of one Kaushal Tyagi was also came into light as an accused. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka26) against the present appellant along with Kaushal Tyagi.

5. The case was committed to the Court of Session.

6. The charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The co-accused Kaushal Tyagi had absconded during the trial, so his file was separated.

8. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined twenty witnesses.

9. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence against him.

10. The appellant has not adduced any defence evidence.

11. The learned trial court heard the arguments, appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgment.

12. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, awarded by the learned trial court, the appellant appealed to this Court.

13. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution.

14. PW1 Shiv Prasad Singh stated that he had informed the