Sanjeev Kumar S/o Bindeshwar & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment as these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 08.05.2017, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 181 of 2014, State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and another, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and 120-B/302 I.P.C and sentenced as hereunder:

"(i) Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.30,000/- each under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(ii) Five year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

(iii) Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each under Section 120-B/302 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a period of one year.

All the sentences shall run concurrently."

Briefly stated, according to the prosecution, appellant Sanjeev Kumar alongwith his wife deceased Rinku and two daughters namely deceased Shruti aged one year and Simran aged about 3 years reached Haridwar on 17.01.2014 at 4:00 a.m. He was also accompanied by appellant Ruby and her daughter PW1 Shivi. On 19.01.2014, the cousin of the deceased Rinku, PW2 Sunil Sharma got a message from his brother Kallu that the deceased Rinku and her daughter Shruti, who had gone to Haridwar alongwith appellant Sanjeev Kumar, were drowned and swept away in river Ganga, while taking bath. PW2 Sunil Sharma smelled a foul play, and he immediately narrated this fact to PW4 Rajesh Sharma. PW4 Rajesh Sharma, who in turn, telephonically contacted appellant Sanjeev Kumar and on being inquired, appellant Sanjeev Kumar informed him that on 18.01.2014 at about 3.00 a.m., while taking bath at Har-Ki-Pauri, Haridwar, deceased Rinku and her daughter Shruti were swept away. The appellant Sanjeev Kumar was travelling from Haridwar to Faridbad at that time. PW4 Rajesh Sharma requested him to stop at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, where they met. They both agreed that they would go together to Haridwar to give first hand account to PW4 Rajesh Sharma on the spot. They reached Haridwar on 19.01.2014 at about 5.00 a.m. Later, on consistent enquiry and questioning, appellant Sanjeev Kumar admitted that he had first spiked the tea of the deceased Rinku with sleeping tablets and as she lay unconscious, she was bodily lifted and thrown in Ganga, along with her daughter Shruti.

Thereafter, a report was lodged by PW4 Rajesh Sharma at Police Station and Case Crime No.62 of 2014 under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants. Since the appellants were accompanying the first informant at the Police Station, therefore, they were arrested by the Police. A Shawl which was worn by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar on the fateful night was also recovered. At the instance of appellants, a cap of deceased Shruti and a Shawl of deceased Rinku were also recovered from near the place of occurrence. Investigation was carried out. During investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained CCTV footage of the location, which according to prosecution revealed that on 18.01.2014 at 01:043 a.m., the appellant Sanjeev Kumar was carrying something on his shoulders and appellant Ruby was following him and when they returned, they had nothing with them. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B read with 34 I.P.C. against the appellants on 18.04.2014 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Since, the offences were exclusively triable by the court of session, the case was committed to the court of session for trial.

On 07.08.2014, charges under Sections 302 r/w 34, 201 r/w 34 and 120-B r/w 302 I.P.C. were framed against the appellants, to which they denied and claimed trial. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined in all eight witnesses i.e. PW1 Ms. Shivi, PW2 Sunil Sharma, PW3 Dinesh Singh, PW4 Rajesh Sharma, PW5 Shankar Dutt, PW6 Naveen Chandra Jural, PW7 Pankaj Devrani and PW8 Harpal Singh.

Appellants were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").

In their statement under Section 313 of the Code, both the appellants denied the prosecution case. It was admitted by the appellant Ruby that they stayed in one room that night, but according to her, she got telephonic message that her mother had fallen ill, therefore, she alongwith her daughter left the hotel at 2:00 am for their house. She does not know as to what happened thereafter, but later she came to know that appellant Sanjeev's wife and daughter were missing. She has also tried to clarify that she treats appellant Sanjeev Kumar as her brother.

Appellant Sanjeev Kumar has also, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code, admitted that he alongwith his family and appellant Ruby alongwith her daughter stayed in Room No. 104 of the hotel Bharati on that fateful night. He has also said that he treats Ruby as his sister and also states that at about 1:00 a.m., when they received a telephonic call about the ill-health of the mother of appellant Ruby, at about 2:00 a.m. appellant Ruby alongwith her daughter had left the hotel. According to him, at about 4:00 a.m. in the morning, his wife i.e. deceased Rinku alongwith her daughter deceased Shruti went to Har-Ki-Pauri and soon thereafter, he also followed them and searched for them, but he could not trace them. He went to Police Station for lodging a missing report, but Police asked him to search his wife at home.

Appellant Sanjeev Kumar was provided legal assistance by the Court during trial. Before this Court, he is being represented by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Arvind Vashistha who is again appointed as an amicus curiae for the appellant Sanjeev Kumar. Whereas appellant Ruby is being defended by learned Advocate, Mr. Shakti Singh.

The learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 08.05.2017 convicted the appellant under under Sections 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and 120-B/302 I.P.C. and sentenced as hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned amicus curiae for the appellant Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Shakti Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant Ruby and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and perused the record.

Learned amicus curiae would argue that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant; the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence and the chain is not complete. Recovery has been tried to be proved without proving the disclosure statement, which has been rightly discarded by the trial court. CCTV footage has not been proved; extra judicial confessional statement allegedly made by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar to the first informant PW4 Rajiv Sharma is a weak type of evidence, which cannot be a basis for conviction; death has not occurred in the hotel room, where appellants were staying on the fateful night, therefore, the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not attracted, which may require the appellants to prove as to the whereabouts of the deceased Rinku and her daughter Shruti and finally about the conduct of appellants, after the incident, it is argued that soon after the occurrence, the appellant Sanjeev Kumar went to the Police Station for lodging the missing report and for assistance, but the Police did not take any action. Thereafter, the appellant went back. It is argued that prosecution in the instant case utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant Sanjeev Kumar.

Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the appellant adopts the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri Arvind Vashistha, Amicus Curiae.

In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the cases of Mahamadkhan Nathekhan Vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 14 SCC 589, Satish Nirankari Vs. Sate of Rajasthan, (2017) 8 SCC 497, Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 551, Sangili Alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police, 2014) 10 SCC 264, Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715, Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117, Madhu Vs. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399, Debapriya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, (2017) 11 SCC 31 and Nagaraj Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Tamil Nadu, (2015) 4 SCC 739.

In the case of Mahamadkhan Nathekhan Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), Hon'ble Cout, inter-alia, held that the law is well settled that when the prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part in order to tilt the scale against the accused.

In the case of Satish Nirankari Vs. Sate of Rajasthan (supra), Hon'ble Court, inter-alia, held as under:-

"It is now well established, by catena of judgements of this Court, that circumstantial evidence of the following character needs to be fully established:

(i) Circumstances should be fully proved.

(ii) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.

(iii) All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

(iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused (see State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal; Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai v. State of Gujarat). It also needs to be emphasised that what is required is not the quantitative, but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the claim connecting the accused with the crime. Suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of legal proof. In the case of circumstantial evidence the influence of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be not compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person."

In the case of Rishipal (supra) Hon'ble Court, referred to the judgment in the case of Rama Nand V. State of H.P., (1981) 1 SCC 511. In this Rama Nand's case, Hon'ble Court, inter-alia, held that:

"where the fact of corpus delicti i.e. 'homicidal death' is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. Even so, this principle of caution cannot be pushed too far as requiring absolute proof. Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why under Section 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to be 'proved', if the court considering the matters before it, considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned."

In the cases of Sangili Alias Sanganathan, , Kanhaiya Lal, Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah and Madhu (supra), similar principles of law has been laid down with regard to the circumstantial evidence.

In the case of Debapriya Pal (supra), Hon'ble Court referred to the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 872, in which Hon'ble Court has, inter-alia, held that the essential ingredient of Section 27 is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence.

In the case of Nagaraj (supra), Hon'ble Court, inter-alia, held that refusal to answer any question put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code by the Court in relation to any evidence that may have been presented against him by the prosecution or the accused giving an evasive or unsatisfactory answer would not justify the court to return a finding of guilt on this score. Even if it is assumed that his statements do not inspire acceptance, it must not be lost sight of that the burden is cast on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would argue that it is admitted that on the fateful night, appellants and deceased were staying in the same room of the hotel, but thereafter, whereabouts of the deceased are not known, therefore, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, appellants have to prove as to where the deceased are, which they failed to do.

Undoubtedly, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and more significantly, the dead bodies of deceased Rinku and Shruti could not be traced. Under such circumstances, to bring home the guilt of the appellants, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character leading to the irresistible conclusion that it is the appellants and appellants alone, who have committed the offence.

One of the occupants, who was in the hotel room on the fateful night is PW1, Ms. Shivi. She is daughter of appellant Ruby. According to the prosecution, Ms. Shivi in her statement under Section 164 of the Code had said that on the fateful night, deceased Rinku complained of headache and pain and hence the appellant Sanjeev Kumar brought tea for her. Appellant Sanjeev Kumar gave two sleeping pills and half tablet for headache to the deceased Rinku. When deceased Rinku was fast asleep, appellants took her at the bridge and threw her in the River Ganga and thereafter, they also did the same with the infant Shruti. She and another daughter of deceased Rinku were in the hotel room. According to the prosecution, PW1 Shivi has, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, also stated that all these facts were narrated to her by her mother because when deceased were taken from hotel room, she was asleep. In her statement recorded in the Court, PW1 Shivi did not fully support the prosecution case, but she has admitted certain facts. She states that on the fateful night, deceased Rinku complained headache and then the appellant Sanjeev Kumar went out and brought tea for her. In Court, this witness has not stated that she accompanied appellant Sanjeev Kumar, while he had gone to bring tea, instead she states that she slept and in the morning when she woke up, her mother, appellant Ruby was with her and after taking tea, they returned to their village.

PW2 Sunil Sharma is the person, who had informed PW4 Rajesh Sharma, the first informant about the incident. According to him, this witness at the relevant time was working in Calcutta. His brother Kallu telephonically informed him that deceased had been swept away in the river at Haridwar, a statement which he doubted. Therefore, he telephonically informed PW4 Rajesh Sharma, who was in Delhi at that time. This witness has also stated that once on 15.12.2013, when he visited his sister at deceased Rinku's house, he was told by the neighbours of his sister that in the absence of deceased Rinku in the house, the appellant Sanjeev Kumar would bring some other woman for staying with him. PW4 Rajesh Sharma, who is the first informant, stated that on receiving telephone call from PW2 Sunil Sharma, he telephonically contacted the appellant Sanjeev Kumar, who told him that deceased Rinku alongwith her daughter Shruti were swept away in River Ganga on 18.01.2014 at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. According to him, at that time, appellant Sanjeev Kumar told him that he is going from Haridwar to Faridabad. This witness asked appellant Sanjeev Kumar to stop at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi where they met. PW4 Rajesh Sharma states that at Kashmiri Gate he inquired from appellant, about the incident. This witness thereafter went to Haridwar, where appellant Sanjeev Kumar confessed to him that he had first spiked the tea of deceased Rinku and thereafter thrown her and her daughter into the river, and this, he has done in view of his relationship with the Ruby. This witness has also stated that appellants were in illicit relationship.

PW3, Mr. Dinesh Singh is the hotel owner, where the appellants and deceased stayed on the fateful night. He categorically stated that the appellants checked-in in his hotel on 17.01.2014 at 4:00 a.m. and booked one room. On 18.01.2014, at 4:00 a.m., appellant Sanjeev Kumar came to him after vacating the room and handed over the key to him.

PW5 Mr. Shankar Dutt is a Police Constable, who has proved certain Police documents. PW6 Naveen Chandra Jural is Investigating Officer, who has taken a Shawl of appellant Sanjeev Kumar from his custody and also recovered Shawl of deceased Rinku and a cap of Shruti from near the place of occurrence, at the instance of appellant Sanjeev Kumar. According to this witness, during the course of investigation, he also examined various CCTV footage in the cameras placed on the vicinity of the incident and on one CCTV camera, placed at the roof of Police Chowki, he found that at 1:043 a.m., appellant Sanjeev Kumar was carrying something wrapped in a Shawl on his shoulder followed by a woman going towards the bridge and after two to three minutes when they came back, the thing he was carrying on his shoulder was not there. Both were empty-handed. This witness has taken the CCTV footage in the pen-drive and then placed a C.D. of it in the record. PW8 Mr. Harpal Singh is also an Investigating Officer, who has stated about the action taken by him, but it is PW7 Pankaj Devrani Investigating Officer, who ultimately filed the charge-sheet.

There is no direct evidence except a few facts, which have been stated by PW1 Ms. Shivi. Appellants and deceased were together in a hotel room on the fateful night and in that night deceased Rinku complained of headache. Then, appellant Sanjeev Kumar got tea for her. These facts have not been denied by the appellants either. Appellants and deceased went together to Haridwar. They all stayed in one room. It is stated by PW1 Shivi, PW3 Dinesh Singh and also admitted by the appellants in their statement under Section 313 of the Code.

In a criminal case, motive is not always very relevant, but, in cases of circumstantial evidence, motive contributes in appreciating the evidence. Motive is a mental state. It cannot be seen by visible means. It has always to be inferred to by the conduct of the parties. In the instant case, PW4 Rajesh Sharma, in the F.I.R. itself, stated about the relationship of the appellants. PW2 Sunil Sharma, who happens to be the brother of the deceased Rinku also states that in the absence of deceased Rinku, the appellant Sanjeev Kumar would bring some woman at his residence. PW4 Rajesh Sharma has categorically stated that appellant Sanjeev Kumar is in illicit relationship with Ruby. Although in cross-examination, it was suggested that they were not in illicit relationship. Why did appellant Ruby alongwith her daughter accompanied the appellant Sanjeev Kumar to Haridwar? In their statement under Section 313 of the Code, they stated that they treat each other like brothers and sisters. They both belong to different States. How did they come close to each other? Do they have any family relationship? Where was the husband of appellant Ruby? Why he did not accompany her to Haridwar? Significantly appellant Sanjeev Kumar was staying alongwith his wife deceased Rinku and two daughters and in the same room, appellant Ruby was also staying with her daughter. This raises suspicion about the relationship between the appellants and this fact also has some bearing in the case. It indicates towards a motive to commit the offence.

Appellant Sanjeev Kumar has stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code about the disappearance of his wife deceased Rinku. The statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of Code is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it may definitely be taken into consideration in order to appreciate the prosecution evidence. In the case of Mohan Singh Vs. Prem Singh and another, (2002) 10 SCC 236, Hon'ble Court, inter-alia, held as under:-

"The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 CrPC can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused can either be relied on in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution."

Deceased Rinku and her daughter Shruti were staying in a hotel room with the appellants. Where did they go? It is appellants, who were required to prove it because this fact was well within their knowledge, as they were staying in the same room. This fact, the appellants were definitely required to prove under Section 106 of the India Evidence Act. Did they do it? What appellant Ruby has stated under Section 313 of the Code is that on the fateful night, at about 1:00 a.m., she got a telephone call about the ill-health of her mother, therefore, at 2:00 a.m., she alongwith her daughter left the hotel. She does not know anything as to what happened thereafter? This may definitely be taken as a discharge of the burden, if really, she had left the hotel at 02:00 a.m. leaving behind appellant Sanjeev Kumar, his wife and his two daughters in the hotel. Appellant Sanjeev Kumar also stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that the appellant Ruby had left the hotel at 2:00 a.m., when she telephonically got a message about the ill-health of her mother. But, it is not true. Appellant Ruby did not leave the hotel at midnight. This is palpably false statement given by both the appellants under Section 313 of the Code, because one eye-witness of the case is PW1 Ms. Shivi, who has though not supported the prosecution case in its entirety, but has substantially proved the case and falsified the statement given by the appellants about the absence of appellant Ruby from the hotel in the morning of 18.01.2014. PW1 Ms. Shivi states that when appellant Sanjeev Kumar went to take tea for his wife in the night, she slept and she woke up in the morning and after having tea, she left for her village. In her cross-examination, she has categorically stated that she and her mother i.e. Ruby left the hotel, after having breakfast, for their village. According to PW1 Shivi, they did not leave the hotel midnight at 2:00 a.m. instead they left the hotel in the morning.

This fact can be further linked to another fact i.e. the presence of appellant Ruby at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi alongwith appellant Sanjeev Kumar. It has been categorically recorded in the first information report. If appellant Ruby had left the hotel midnight at 2:00 a.m. for her village, how was she with appellant Sanjeev Kumar at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, when PW4 Rajesh Sharma met them? They all came back to Haridwar, where after lodging an F.I.R., appellant Ruby was also arrested.

Appellant Sanjeev Kumar checked into the hotel room at 4:00 a.m. in the morning on 17.01.2014. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code, he says that his wife Rinku had left the hotel on 18.01.2014 at 4:00 a.m. in the morning alongwith her daughter Shruti for going to Har-Ki-Pauri. In this case, these timings are very important because PW3 Dinesh Singh has stated that hotel was checked-out by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar at 4:00 a.m. in the morning of 18.01.2014. If deceased Rinku had gone for bath alongwith her daughter at 4:00 a.m. and the appellant Sanjeev went to search for her after sometime, then how could he check out the hotel at 4:00 a.m.? What was the occasion for deceased Rinku to go without her husband to Har-Ki-Pauri at 4:00 a.m. in the morning with a small girl of one year? why did the appellant Sanjeev Kumar stay back? Considering it and all other attending factors, it is, in fact, proved that deceased Rinku did not go from the hotel as stated by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar in his statement under Section 313 of the Code.

According to the prosecution, appellant Sanjeev has also made a confessional statement before PW4 Rajesh Sharma. It has been argued that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. No doubt, extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, but it does not mean that it cannot be looked into to appreciate the evidence and if it got corroboration, perhaps, it may add as a link to the circumstances to make the chain complete. In the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2010, Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, held that:-

"it is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC 204, this court after referring to Piara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1997) 4 SCC 452 held that the law does not require that each and every circumstances mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated."

In the present case, PW4, Rajesh Sharma is the first person who confronted the appellant Sanjeev Kumar about the disappearance of deceased Rinku and her daughter Shruti. Finding the explanation given by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar unconvincing, PW4 Rajesh Sharma persuaded appellant Sanjeev Kumar to accompany him to Haridwar. It is at Haridwar, according to the prosecution, confessional statement was made by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar. This fact has been categorically stated in the First Information Report. This statement was not given under any assurance or pressure. In F.I.R., it is stated that PW4, Rajesh Sharma told the appellant Sanjeev Kumar that he doubts his version of disappearance of deceased Rinku and her daughter, and, if he tells him the truth, he might help him. It is thereafter the confessional statement was made. In his statement, PW4 Rajesh Sharma has categorically stated that when he convinced the appellant Sanjeev Kumar to speak the truth, he told him that he had first spiked the tea of deceased Rinku and thereafter thrown deceased Rinku and her daughter in River Ganga. This, according to the witness, the appellant has done in view of his relationship with appellant Ruby. Here, a reference can be made to the statement of PW1 Shivi, who has categorically stated that in the intervening night of 17/18.01.2014, deceased Rinku complained of headache and thereafter appellant Sanjeev Kumar went to bring tea for her. This was really an opportunity for appellant Sanjeev Kumar to spike her tea, which may make her unconscious, drowsy or sleepy. This fact to a certain extent corroborates the extra judicial confession.

The conduct of the appellants is also a very relevant factor in the instant case. Although, it is also a settled principle of the law that any presumption on the basis of the conduct should not be easily inferred to because each person reacts differently under the given circumstances, but here is the case, where a man states that his wife and young daughter has been missing and soon thereafter without approaching any authorities, he leaves the city. Though, in his statement Section 313 of the Code, the appellant states that he had gone to Police to lodge a missing report, but there is no record to that effect.

If the wife of appellant Sanjeev Kumar was in fact missing, how could he leave the city? According to him, his wife had gone for bath alongwith her minor daughter Shruti. A little thereafter, he went in search for her. This, appellant Sanjeev Kumar, has stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code. For the sake of argument, if it is believed that the wife of appellant Sanjeev Kumar had gone alongwith her daughter for bath, then what was the occasion for appellant Sanjeev Kumar to go in search for her? She would have come back on her own or the appellant Sanjeev Kumar would have gone to join her at Har-Ki-Pauri. 'Going for search' further doubts the conduct of appellant Sanjeev Kumar. Even before leaving the city, appellant Sanjeev Kumar did not inform the hotel owner about missing of his wife Rinku and daughter Shruti. According to PW3 Dinesh Singh, on 20.01.2014, from a newspaper report, he came to know that deceased Rinku was disappearing. The conduct of appellant Sanjeev Kumar strengthens the prosecution case. It is a piece of evidence, which is relevant. Learned trial court has categorically stated the circumstances, which are inter-linked without any gap.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that in the instant case, the chain of circumstances is complete and it is of a definitive character leading to irresistible conclusion that it is the appellants and appellants alone who have committed the offence. The charges against the appellants have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned court below has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellants, as the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, these appeals deserve to be dismissed.

Both these appeals are dismissed.