The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory, can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence forms a complete chain excluding any hypothesis of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred in terms of Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”], assailing the judgment dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South Saket Court, New Delhi [“Trial Court”] whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred as ‘A-1’) has been convicted under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], followed by impugned order on sentence dated 22.02.2024 whereby A-1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as fine, in default of which he shall further undergo one year simple imprisonment. Further, under Section 364 /34 IPC A-1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of which, he shall further undergo 06 months simple imprisonment, under section 365/34 IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which, he shall further undergo 06 months simple imprisonment and under section 201/34 IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default of which, he shall further undergo 02 months simple imprisonment.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that the co-accused Vikram @ Manoj (hereinafter referred as ‘A-2’) was also convicted vide the same impugned judgment dated 12.07.2018 for the same set of offences and sentenced in the same manner as A-1. A-2 earlier filed a criminal appeal bearing CRL.A. 968/2018, which came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide judgment dated 23.12.2022 and thereby upholding the impugned conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. In a nutshell, the prosecution case brought out during the trial is that on 26.05.2011 at around 10:30 p.m., a missing report vide DD No.62-B (Ex. PW-2/DB) was registered at PS, [Police Station] Vasant Kunj (North) on the complaint of PW-2/Baljit Singh, who reported that his father Raghuvir Singh (deceased) aged around 62 years had left home at 8:00 am as per daily routine and had gone to their plot bearing No.150A/9, Kishangarh, Delhi but had not returned home. He further stated that his mother was also there with his father but around 10:00 am his father was conversing with a man who had arrived in a long/big vehicle of yellow colour and was taken by him in the car which was being driven by another person.

4. It is the prosecution case that since the father of PW-2 did not come back, PW-2 visited the police station on the next day 27.05.2011 at about 12.00 p.m. and informed that he had come to know that A-1, who was their neighbour, was the one who had taken away his father in his car which was being driven by somebody else, which led to registration of the present FIR, First Information Report No.127/2011 (Ex.PW-14/A) under Section 365 /34 IPC at 12.40 p.m. on 27.05.2011 at PS Vasant Kunj (North). During the ensuing investigation, statement of PW-1/Omwati and PW-2/Baljit Singh were recorded who informed that A-1 had posed a threat to them about 10-20 days before regarding their plot 150-A/9, Kishan Garh as well as demanded money. At their instance the site plan of the place from where the deceased went missing was prepared (Ex. PW-41/B). The IO, [Investigating Officer]/PW-41 obtained the CDR, [Call Detail Record] of mobile number 9911730966 of A-1 provided to him by PW-1 and PW-2 and found that a call was exchanged between the said number and the complainant’s mobile numb