IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that in criminal cases, mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is essential for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08.10.2014/09.10.2014, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2011, State vs. Zulfiqar alias Mota and Another, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”); he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC; and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 411 IPC with default imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the informant Ashok Kumar Pandey (PW1) had lodged an FIR (Ext. Ka.6) through his written information (Ext. Ka.1) that he and his wife are teachers. This morning his daughter and his son went to school at around 7 a.m. He and his wife also went to school. His mother Smt. Rewati Devi Pandey was at house. When he and his wife came their house at around 1:30 p.m., they saw that the articles inside the house were scattered and his mother’s dead body was lying in the kitchen and there was blood. At that time they did not see which item was missing. His mother had a Samsung mobile phone No. 9012666540, which was switched off. He thought that the miscreants had taken that mobile phone with them.

3. The police received the information about the dead body of the deceased at 13.40 hrs. on 01.09.2010. Sub-Inspector Pan Singh (PW10) reached the spot along with other police personnel. The inquest proceeding was conducted by him.

4. The First Information Report (Ext. Ka.6) was registered on 01.09.2010 at 17.05 hrs. against the unknown person under Section 302 IPC.

5. The investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Umed Singh Danu (PW15).

6. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. C.P. Bhaisoda (PW7) at 7.45 p.m. on 01.09.2010.

7. A list dated 03.09.2010 (Ext. Ka.2) was given by the informant to the police in which it was mentioned that one pair of gold earrings, which was worn by his mother, one pair of gold earrings, which were kept in the bedroom cupboard, Rs.6,000/- and a Samsung mobile phone were looted from his house.

8. During the investigation, it was revealed that the appellant had done carpentry work at the informant’s house. On the morning of 01.09.2010, he was seen with one Naresh and Istiaq outside the informant’s house.

9. The appellant was arrested on 15.10.2010. He confessed his guilt. The confessional statement of the appellant led to the recovery of a Samsung mobile phone of the deceased (International Mobile Equipment Identity (in short, “IMEI”) number 353350032799810) (Material Ext.1). There was no Subscriber Identity Module (in short, “SIM”) in the mobile phone. A pair of gold tops (Material Ext.2) were recovered from his house. The police seized the said articles vide Memo Ext. Ka.4. Call details of the deceased’s mobile phone and the appellant’s mobile phone number 7827670183 were obtained by the investigating officer. After completion of the investigation, Sub-Inspector Umed Singh Danu (PW15) filed the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.27) against the appellant along with Istiaq under Sections 302, 394, 411 and Section 34 IPC.

10. The charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 394 IPC and Section 411 IPC were framed against the appellant and Istiaq. As the appellant and Istiaq pleaded innocence, trial was held.

11. In order to establish the accusations, prosecution examined 15 witnesses.

12. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. Appellant and Istiaq denied all the incriminatin