In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dur Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.10.2022 and 28.10.2022, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Special Sessions Trial No.08 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No.598 of 2003, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad, whereby the accused appellants Aneet, Badam, Roshan, Jarman, Rajendra, Shiv Sharan and Rishipal have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment to undergo two years additional imprisonment; sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment to undergo one year additional imprisonment; sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment to undergo one year additional imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 147 IPC and in default of payment to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The first information report in the present case has been lodged on 23.11.2003 at 06.10 pm on the basis of a written report made by the informant Ram Charan, who has been produced as PW-1 during trial. The allegation in the first information report is that at 09.00 am on 17.11.2003, informant’s nephew Ram Niwas was taken by the fellow residents of village, namely accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan, Aneet and Badam to Kutchery (District Court) at Fatehgarh, whereafter nephew of informant did not return. Despite the efforts made the missing nephew could not be traced. On 19.11.2003, informant’s brother Ram Prakash had gone to the house of Harinath Lodhi in his attempt to trace out his missing nephew. Harinath Lodhi was not present at home. So the informant’s brother came to the house of Rajendra Singh, where accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan, Sanjay and Rajeev shot dead informant’s brother Ram Prakash. After this incident accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan, Aneet, Roshan and Badam alongwith Jarman son of Dafedar Lodhi, confessed to Suresh Yadav, Rakesh Yadav and Harinath Lodhi that on 17.11.2003, they have taken Ram Niwas and has done him to death. Later, Ram Prakash has also been done to death. The accused persons further stated that if anybody stood up against them they would not spare him. With these allegations the FIR came to be lodged in the present case. The written report on the basis of which FIR came to be lodged has been proved by PW-1.

4. Investigation in the present matter proceeded and on 19.12.2003, recovery was made of the clothes and shoes of missing nephew Ram Niwas on the pointing out of accused Shiv Sharan and Rishipal. These two accused also confessed that they have killed the deceased and his body has been buried on the river bank by digging a pit. The recovery memo of the pant, shirt and the pair of shoes has been exhibited during trial as Ex.ka.2.

5. It is admitted that neither the dead body of the deceased has been recovered nor his whereabouts have been found. The investigation ultimately concluded with submission of a charge sheet against the accused persons on 18.1.2004 and 4.3.2004. Cognizance was taken in the matter by the concerned Magistrate whereupon the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and got registered as Special Sessions Trial No.08 of 2005. The charges were framed against the accused under Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201 I.P.C. as well as Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Charges were read out to the accused, who denied their implications and demanded trial.

6. During the cou