STATE Vs. UPENDER RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State seeks leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 16.04.2010 in S.C. No. 506/2006 whereby the respondents were acquitted for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations briefly were that an FIR was registered on the basis of a D.D. entry on 22.09.2003 in regard to the murder of a young boy Rinku, aged 10-12 years at Flat No. 848, Mangol Puri, Delhi. Rinku was the son of PW-3 Shakuntala Devi. THE latter stayed with the deceased and her daughters in the ground floor of the premises. THE first floor was let-out to Gopal, Pandit and Santosh and the second floor was let-out to Siyaram and Ashok. Shakuntala Devi, PW-3 deposed that as usual, on 22.09.2003, she left for her work at about 09.00 AM and her daughters also left in the morning. Rinku was left behind. He used to attend afternoon school. She was informed, upon her return, that Rinku had been murdered. She expressed suspicion on the respondents' complicity, who she claimed, used to stay with Ashok. She alleged that the accused used to visit Ashok and that one day prior to the incident, there was an alteration between them and her, when they visited Ashok as she had objected to that. Ashok as stated earlier, was a tenant on the second floor. Shakuntala Devi also deposed that the accused had been residing in Ashok's house about two days prior to the incident which was objected. THE altercation and the difference of opinion between the accused/respondents and the Shakuntala Devi was, according to the prosecution, the motive behind the murder.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions as well as the original record in this case. At the outset, it would be relevant to notice that the prosecution inter alia based its case on circumstantial evidence. It has been repeatedly held (Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. 1989 (Supp) 2 SCC 706; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 (2) SCC 86) that in appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court should record a conviction only if all links in the chain are complete, pointing to the guilt of the accused and the court is further satisfied that every hypothesis of the accused's innocence is capable of being negatived during evidence. Each circumstance should be fully proved and the cumulative of all the facts so established must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused.