- (1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against their conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364-A, 201 IPC ordered by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kannauj vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2010 passed in Session Trial No. 347 of 2007, State of U.P. Vs. Devendra alias Pancham alias Vinod and another, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302, 364-A IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they were sentenced for six months additional rigorous imprisonment, under Section 201 IPC they shall undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo for two months additional rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) The appeal has been mainly preferred on the ground that the judgment and order recorded by the court below cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the entire prosecution story is based upon the circumstantial evidence but the chain of the circumstantial evidence has not been completed in the instant case. It is also asserted therein that in fact the witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution version which itself raises doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. It is also asserted that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay with no convincing explanation and even recovery is not proved, and, therefore, the story set up by the prosecution cannot be relied upon and recovery can be said to be doubtful. It is also asserted that in fact there is no credible evidence against the appellants and the impugned judgment of conviction is illegal in the eye of law, therefore, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned AGA for the State and have given our anxious consideration.;