JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : The appellant has come up in appeal against the judgement and order dated 10.11.2014, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2009, whereby the appellant - Zahur Ahmad @ Guddu @ Mohammad has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was registered against the unknown accused on 09.11.2006 on the basis of hand-written complaint dated 09.11.2006 given by one Rafiq Ahmad S/o Shri Haji Kudratullah, R/o Ward No.7, Boring Gali Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar stated that on 09.11.2006 at around 08:30 A.M., one Muhammad Aamir S/o Intezar Khan came to his shop and told him that a dead body of a woman was lying in the inner part of his half-built house on his vacant land. When the complainant went to the spot, he saw a woman who had cut marks on her cheeks, her face was swollen, and there was dry blood in her nose, ears and mouth. Later, on 15.11.2006 another complaint was given by one Shri Shaukat Ali Khan S/o Mehboob Ali Khan, in which it was mentioned that the complainant lives in the same locality where Zahur @ Guddu lives with Mrs. Ruksana, and an 8-9 year old son. The complainant stated that a month ago Zahur told him that the house in which he lives is small and asked him to help him in taking Liaqat’s house as the same is big. On the request of Shaukat Ali, Liaqat gave the house on rent to Zahur. Thereafter, Zahur was missing from 07.11.2006 after locking his house and the dead body of the woman was received on 09.11.2006 in the same locality. On the request of Shaukat Ali, Liaqat gave the house on rent to Zahur. Thereafter, Zahur was missing from 07.11.2006 after locking his house and the dead body of the woman was received on 09.11.2006 in the same locality. The complainant stated there was discussion in the locality that the dead body was that of Rukshana, but due to fear no one was ready to tell. He further stated that today i.e. 15.11.2006, Zahur @ Guddu came to his shop and said that on 07.11.2006 after getting angry his wife went somewhere, since then he was searching for her but did not find anywhere. On which he said that there was discussion in the locality that the dead body that was found on 09.11.2006 was of Rukshana and you killed her. Thereafter, Zahur @ Guddu said to Imtiaz Malik S/o Ishaq Ali who was sitting on the shop that he had made a mistake and strangulated Rukshana with a dupatta in anger and had poured acid on her face so that no one could identify her and asked to help him. On this Complaint of Shri Shaukat Ali, copy of report no. 43 was done and the 3. In the further investigation, the investigating officer opened the lock of the house that was taken on rent by Zahur Ahmad @ Guddu and took possession of it and after inspecting the house and recovered blood-stained soil and a piece of torn shirt pocket, plain soil and acid soil were took into possession and after inspecting the incident site, prepared a map. After the post-mortem, the dead body was identified on the basis of the clothes worn on its body and photographs, the statements of the witnesses were also recorded. After due investigation, the chargesheet against the accused Zahur Ahmad @ Guddu @ Mohammad was sent to Magistrate Court under Section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The Magistrate Court took cognizance against the accused Zahur @ Guddu @ Mohammad, ensured his presence and gave him the copies of the document and committed the case to Sessions court. The Charges were framed under section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused. The accused denied the same and demand a trial. 5. 4. The Magistrate Court took cognizance against the accused Zahur @ Guddu @ Mohammad, ensured his presence and gave him the copies of the document and committed the case to Sessions court. The Charges were framed under section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused. The accused denied the same and demand a trial. 5. After the charge-sheet, the following documentary evidence were present on behalf of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused: i. Exhibit Ka-1 Tehrir ii. Exhibit Ka-2 Panchnama iii. Exhibit Ka-3 Tehrir iv. Exhibit Ka-4 Postmortem Report v. Exhibit Ka-5 Map Nazri vi. Exhibit Ka-6 Fard for opening House of the lock vii. Exhibit Ka-7 Map Nazri viii. Exhibit Ka-8 and Ka-9 Fard for collecting blood sample, acidic and plain soil sample ix. Exhibit Ka-10 Chargesheet x. Exhibit Ka-11 Chik FIR xi. Exhibit Ka-12,13,14,15 Nakal Rapat xii. Exhibit Ka-16 Photograph of the dead body xiii. Exhibit Ka-17 Form No. 13 xiv. Exhibit Ka-18 Sample Seal xv. Exhibit Ka-19 Letter sent to CMO U.S. Nagar by Senior Sub Inspector 6. The following witnesses were examined for the purpose of proving the charges on behalf of the prosecution: i. PW-1 Rafiq Ahmad ii. PW-2 Abbas Malik iii. PW-3 Zia-ul- Hassan iv. PW-4 Shaukat Ali v. PW-5 Liaqat vi. PW-6 Dr. R.S. Kuwar vii. PW-7 Inspector BL Verma viii. PW-8 Mrs. Rehana ix. PW-9 Aamir. 7. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the statement of accused Zahur @ Guddu @ Mohammad was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused denied the fact of living with his wife and children in the house of Liaqat on and before 07.11.2006 and also denied of knowing Liaqat and Shaukat Ali. The accused also denied the fact that on 07.11.2006 he strangulated his wife Rukshana with a rope/dupatta and also denied the fact that acid was poured on her face with the intention of destroying the evidence and the body was thrown in the room of Rafiq Ahmad’s under construction house. The accused also denied the fact of accepting the murder of Rukshana in front of Shaukat Ali, Imtiaz Ali and Ibne Ali and said it was wrong. The accused denied and termed the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses as false and refused to present oral or documentary evidence in defence saying that the trial was a false one and declared himself innocent. 8. The accused denied and termed the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses as false and refused to present oral or documentary evidence in defence saying that the trial was a false one and declared himself innocent. 8. After going through all the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court, the trial court observed that it becomes clear from the evidences and oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the prosecution has proved the date, time, place of the incident of murder and throwing the dead body in the semi-built house of Rafiq Ahmad. The statements of the witnesses of fact corroborate each other. The prosecution appears to have been successful in proving the former conduct of the accused as well as the subsequent conduct of the accused of locking the house at the scene of the incident and disappeared immediately also shows his involvement in the incident. The trial court held that it becomes clear that the prosecution succeeded in proving the facts beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Zahur @ Guddu @ Mohammad, with a prior motive, Rukshana was murdered by beating and strangulating her in the rented house of Liaqat and pour acid on her face to destroy the evidence and thrown the dead body in the semi-built house of Rafiq. The Trial Court accordingly convicted the accused under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The pivotal issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the prosecution has successfully proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. Additionally, it must be assessed whether the lower court's decision to impose the punishment, as stated in the impugned judgment, was justified. 10. This case hinges on circumstantial evidence, as no one witnessed the commission of the offence. It is well established that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can only be upheld if the prosecution proves a chain of events that exclusively points to the accused's guilt, without any plausible hypothesis of innocence. This legal standard was clearly articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , a precedent that has been consistently followed. This legal standard was clearly articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , a precedent that has been consistently followed. In light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), this Court must scrutinize the prosecution's evidence in the present case to determine if it meets the required legal standards. The relevant observations from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) are outlined in paragraphs 152 to 154, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated : “152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [ (1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656 ]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 153. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Cri LJ 1783] where the observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 11. The records clearly reveal that the accused was living in the house of Liaqat on rent with Rukshana and her 8-9 years old son, Aamir. The PW-8 Mrs. Rehana has said in her statement that deceased Rukshana was her elder sister. The records clearly reveal that the accused was living in the house of Liaqat on rent with Rukshana and her 8-9 years old son, Aamir. The PW-8 Mrs. Rehana has said in her statement that deceased Rukshana was her elder sister. Rukshana was married to Shamim and she had three sons and two girls from Shamim. Shamim has died and thereafter Rukshana started living with the accused Zahur. She used to visit Rukshana’s house in Kichha. It is clear from the testimony of PW-8 that the accused and the deceased used to live together in Kichha. The same was also confirmed by the statement of PW-9, Aamir, the son of the deceased. In his statement, the witness stated that Rukshana was her mother, and she was killed by Zahur. Before killing her mother, Zahur had beaten her. He himself saw that Zahur killed her mother by strangulating her with a rope. At the time of incident, he was at home. He also stated that he lived in Kichha with her mother Rukshana and Zahur. The statement of PW-9 has also supported the statement of PW-8. These statements also supported the statement of the Investigation Officer PW-7, as well as has supported the medical evidences. 12. The PW-7 also stated that the accused has been absconding from the day of the incident till the day he surrendered in the Court on 08.12.2006. There were independent witnesses also on record, who gave their testimony and the same corroborated with the facts of the case. PW-1, Rafiq Ahmad was not a relative of the deceased. He gave his testimony to support the complaint. PW-4, Shaukat Ali, who was also an independent witness, gave his testimony and stated that on 15.11.2006, Zahur Ahmad came to his shop and said that his wife was missing since 07.11.2006 and when this witness said to the accused that there was discussion in the colony that the recovered dead body was of your wife Rukshana and you killed her. On this the accused had said to Imtiaz Malik and Ibne Ali, who were also sitting in the shop, that he has made a mistake in anger, and had killed his wife Rukshana by strangulating her with a scarf (dupatta). 13. PW-5 has also admitted in his statement that the accused Zahur @ Guddu used to live in his house on rent. 13. PW-5 has also admitted in his statement that the accused Zahur @ Guddu used to live in his house on rent. He has also said in his statement that the room in his house, in which the accused was living as a tenant, was locked and the accused was missing. He also testified that the blood stained soil, torn cloth of shirt’s pocket and plain soil taken from the rented portion of his house at the spot of murder related to the murder incident. It is also clear from the statement of PW-6, Dr. R.S. Kumar, who has stated that the deceased died due to suffocation and ante mortem cut wounds were also present on her neck and nose. 14. The present facts of the case sufficiently complete the circumstantial chain of the events, and are also corroborated with the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and the independent witnesses also prove the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court, as the same has been passed after evaluating the evidences by correctly forming the circumstantial chain of evidence completely. 15. The appeal is, hereby, dismissed on the basis of the above-said discussion. 16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.