IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the necessity of a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases, particularly when direct evidence is lacking.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

Since both these appeals arise from one and the same Sessions Trial, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.

2. Present appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2016/06.10.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2009, State v. Phool Singh alias Phullu and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun (“the case”). By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- each, with a stipulation that in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows. The deceased Mahboob Hasan was asleep in a shop in the night of 30.12.2008. Next morning, on 31.12.2008, he was found dead. A report was lodged by PW 1 Shoaib Ahmed, based on which Case Crime No. 209 of 2008 under Section 302, 120B read with Section 34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. Investigation was undertaken. Inquest of the deceased was conducted on 31.12.2008. On the same day, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. Three injuries were detected on the person of the deceased. They are as follows:-

(i) Incised wound on front forehead vertically, lower end trending downward; clean cut margin of 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep; towards the left side of eye.

(ii) Incised wound; transversely placed; size 11 c.m. x 4 c.m. x neck cutting deep up to cervical vertibrae bone. All soft tissues including trachea, oesophagus, vessels and all tissues cut through and through, clotted blood 6 c.m. above chest and 6 c.m. below chin.

(iii) Abraided contusion of size 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. near back side of wrist of right hand.

5. Blood stained soil as well as simple soil was also taken into custody by the police from near the place of incident. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan. According to the prosecution case, the appellants were arrested on 05.01.2009. On 06.01.2009, at the instance of the appellant Phool Singh, the weapon of offence i.e. an iron rod (Saria) was recovered from the forest area and at the instance of the appellant Irfan, a knife was recovered. Both these articles were sent for forensic examination.

6. On 27.07.2009, charge under Sections 302 read with 34 was framed against the appellants and the co-accused. Rizwan was also charged under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC. The appellants and the co-accused denied charges and claimed trial.

7. The co-accused Rizwan was acquitted by the trial court for the charge under Section 120B read with 302 IPC. In para 13 of the impugned judgment and order, it is recorded that Arjun Singh was a child in conflict with law, therefore, his file was separated for inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun.

8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Shoaib Ahmed, PW 2 Aurangjeb, PW 3 Rajesh Kumar, PW 4 Javed Khan, PW 5 Dr. K.C. Pant, PW 6 Jahid, PW 7 Farookh, PW 8 Rajesh @ Rizwan, PW 9 Gulfam, PW 10 Dr. K.S. Chauhan, PW 11 CP 913 Pankaj Singh Rawat, PW 12 Constable 263 Himanshu Amoli, PW 13 SI Yashpal Singh and PW 14, Sri V.K. Jetha, the Investigating Officer.

9. After the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. According to them, they were falsely implicated.

10. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the court below convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated hereinbefore.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; the court below has committed an error in law in convicting and sentencing the appellants. He would also raise the following points in his submissio