- (1.) Both, the Criminal Appeal as well as Capital Sentence Reference arise out of the same judgment and orderdated 22-5-2000 passed by Sri Sardar Akhtar, Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Gonda in Sessions Trial (Special) No. 136 of 1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted of death sentence together with fine amounting to Rs. 10,000.00 for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., ten years R.I. and a fine amounting to Rs. 5,000.00 for the offence punishable under Section 364, I.P.C., seven years R.I. and a fine amounting to Rs. 5,000.00 for the offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. and imprisonment for life and a fine amounting to Rs. 5,000.00 for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(5), S.C./S.T. Act.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
(3.) In the instant case, no one is alleged to have seen the occurrence of murder etc. and the prosecution has built its case on circumstantial evidence. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in 1976 SCC (Criminal) 120 : (AIR 1976 SC 917), Chand Mal v. State of Rajasthan, that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly, the circumstances, from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly, these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. That is to say, the circumstances should be of incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt. The same view has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent ruling also as reported in 1991 SCC 27 : (AIR 1991 SC 1388), Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa.;