In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the accused and that they exclude every other hypothesis save the one that the accused is guilty.

JUDGMENT VIVEK RUSIA, J. – All appeals arise out of the homicidal death of Bharat (deceased No. 1), Shantilal (deceased No. 3) and Shobharam, whose dead bodies were found in the agriculture field of Nathu Gayri, near Maleni River. Since these appeals arise out of three murders committed sequentially on different dates by the common accused, therefore, all three criminal appeals were tagged and heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Appellants Ghanshyam, Bindu @ Pushkar and Mukesh have filed CRA No. 362/2007 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29th November, 2006 arising out of ST No. 94/2005 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced for homicidal death of late Shantilal (deceased No. 3) as under : –

3. The prosecution story in short is as under :

An FIR No. 77/2002 was registered under sections 352, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code on 24-3-2005 on account of disclosure by the Mukesh that 35 days ago he took Shantilal (deceased No. 3) s/o Rameshwar with him to meet missing person Bharat (deceased No. 1) and thereafter he has killed him by strangulating the neck and buried his dead body in the forest area. On his disclosure memorandum statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the dead body of Shantilal (deceased No. 3) was recovered on 24-3-2005. The Police registered an FIR against eight accused namely (i) Mukesh Dhakad, (ii) Dashrath Giri, (iii) Gulam Hussain, (iv) Bindu @ Pushkar, (v) Ramchandra Patidar, (vi) Suresh Katara, (vii) Jujhar Ninama and (viii) Ghanshayam Dhakad. On disclosure memorandum statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act of Ghanshyam red colour motorcycle (without front wheel) of Shantilal was recovered from the well near his house and front wheel of the said motorcycle was recovered from the house of the Bindu @ Pushakar on his memorandum statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. A Fawda was recovered from Jujhar and a Gaiti was recovered from Gulam Hussain. Mukesh has disclosed that he committed the crime at the instance of Ramchandra (uncle of the Bharat), hence, he has also been made co-accused. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The Prosecution examined 34 witnesses and got exhibited 59 documents. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Additional Session Judge has convicted Mukesh Dhakad, Bindu and Ghanshyam under sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted Dashrath Giri, Gulam Hussain, Ramchandra Patidar, Suresh Katara and Jujhar Ninama, hence this criminal appeal.

4. Appellants Mukesh Dhakad, Bindu @ Pushkar and Ghanshyam have filed CRA No. 363/2007 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29th November, 2006 arising out of ST No. 93/2005 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced for homicidal death of late Shobharam (deceased No. 2). The State of Madhya Pradesh has als