The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the accused, and the significance of motive in establishing guilt were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, J. : – The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 25-3-2007 passed by the 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M. P.) in S.T. No. 50/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 364, 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and sentenced as under : –

2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows : –

(i) That on 3-10-2005, at about 10.00 PM, while complainant Satyanarayan was standing at square near his residence 38/2, Jaibhawani Nagar, Indore along with his friends Balli Kushwah, Pappu Ghatge, Pappu Sharma, Manoj Solanki and brother deceased Kamal making collection for preparations of Nav Durga puja, appellant Sanjay and co-accused Mukesh came there and took the deceased Kamal with them on the motorcycle, which appellant Sanjay was driving whom deceased referred as his brother-in-law. Deceased Kamal thereafter did not return home. Next day, on being enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased, appellant Sanjay informed that he dropped Kamal outside his house on the same night. When deceased did not return till late night, then at about 23.55 hours, missing person’s report (Exhibit-P/11) was lodged by Rakesh at police station Aerodrome, Indore. Thereafter, on 5-10-2005, Satynarayan made a written complaint (Exhibit-P/1) to SHO Police Station Aerodrome, Indore against the appellant and co-accused Mukesh on the basis of suspicion as deceased had a fight with the appellant some 7-8 days prior to the date of incident and co-accused Mukesh on being inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased told different version than that of appellant that he dropped the deceased outside his in-law’s house. S. I. Ashok Rangshahi, on the basis of aforesaid written complaint, lodged FIR (Exhibit-P/2) against the appellant as well as co-accused Mukesh for the offences punishable under section 364 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(ii) During investigation, on 6-10-2005, ASI P. S. Chouhan went to the place of incident, prepared spot map (Exhibit-P/3), recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and made a search for the dead-body of the deceased Kamal. On 8-10-2005, S. I. Ashok Rangshahi arrested the appellant Sanjay, as per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/7) and co-accused Mukesh, as per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/8). He recorded their memorandum statements Exhibit-P/11 and P/10 respectively and thereafter, seized a clutch wire, a broken silver chain, a pearl necklace, a leather purse containing photographs of appellant Sanjay and deceased’s wife Babitabai along with appellant’s license and an amount of Rs. 170/- cash on their instance from Gajarghas near Ralamandal Hills, Indore as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/6). On the same day, he also seized a black coloured rubber sandal on the instance of appellant from a place near Talainaka, Mhow Phata as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/5) and a nylon rope from his house as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/4). Identification proceeding was conducted as per identification memo (Exhibit-P/10) wherein deceased’s brother Ritesh identified the seized broken silver chain and pearl necklace as the articles of deceased along with deceased’s wife photographs. Search of the body of the deceased was conducted in Narmada river near Mortakka bridge and also at Ralamandal Bawdi but the same was not found. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore w