Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The appellants Chottya @ Chotu and Manisha were indicted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chabra District Baran in Sessions Case No. 77/1995 for having committed murder of Hajari Lal. Vide judgment dated June 29, 1996, they were convicted and sentenced U/s. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. The said judgment has been assailed by the appellants in the instant appeal.
(2.) The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial is that Ram Gopal Singh, S.H.O. Har Navda Shahji received a telephonic message around 4.15 PM. on July 9, 1995 to the effect that the inhabitants of village Har Navda Shahji were disturbed by the foul smell spreading out from the house of Hajari Lal, which was locked from the outside. Ram Gopal Singh, S.H.O. alongwith Suresh Singh, Ramesh, Narayan, Sher Singh and Ram Gopal proceeded to the spot. After breaking the lock of Hajari Lal's house when the police party entered inside, dead body of the Hajari Lal was found in a de-composed condition. There, Kailash Chand, brother of the deceased Hajari Lal submitted a written report (Ex.P-6) to the S.H.O. Police Station, Harnavda Shahji, which was registered as F.I.R. No. 111/1995 (Ex.P-7) U/s. 302 I.RC. and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Hajari Lal was conducted, statement of witnesses U/s. 161 Cr.RC. were recorded, necessary memos were drawn, the appellants were arrested. On the basis of their disclosure statements, stone allegedly used in the commission of offence as well as the key, which was the fellow pair of lock, put on Hajari Lal's house were recovered. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid. In due course, the case came up for trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chabra. Charges U/s. 302 and in the alternative U/s. 302/34 of the I.PC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. In the explanation U/s. 313 Cr.RC., the appellants claimed innocence. However, no witness in defence was examined. The learned trial court, on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated here-in-above.
(3.) There is no eye witness in this case. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, before the court can record conviction, it must satisfy itself that circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but also complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is on the basis of these principles that we shall examine the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the. prosecution in this case.;