Ajay Kumar Nirankari, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 02/06/2012 passed by ASJ(Fast Track Court), Amarwada District Chhindwara in S.T.No.167/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 364 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years read with Section 34 of IPC with default stipulation.

2. As per prosecution case, on 11.03.2011, the village Kotwar of Villages Hadai and Murgitola, Lalaram, informed Police Station Harrai that Gendlal Gond had told him that a dead body is lying in the foundation of an under-construction dam. Thereupon, he went to the spot and found that an unidentified male person was lying dead in a supine position in the excavated foundation of the dam. The upper portion of his body, above the waist, is burnt from the front side, and his age appeared to be about 30-35 years. Upon receiving the information, T.I. C.S. Chowkidar, Police Station Harrai, registered Merg No. 10/2011 and, during the merg inquiry, visited the place of occurrence, issued notice to the panch witnesses vide Exhibit P-3, and prepared the inquest report (Naksha Panchanama) of the unidentified deceased.

3. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and upon obtaining the post-mortem report, the doctor opined that the deceased had first been strangulated to death and was thereafter burnt. Since the inquiry into the death revealed that the incident was of a criminal nature, a case was registered at Police Station Harrai as Crime No. 36/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and the First Information Report was accordingly lodged.

4. On 15.03.2011, Ashok Kori, the brother of the deceased, submitted a written application regarding the disappearance of his brother, B.P. Kori, on the basis of which Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1101 dated 15.03.2011 was recorded and Missing Person Report No. 36/2011 was registered. According to the said report, the deceased had left Seoni on 10.03.2011 at about 11:00 a.m. for proceeding to Narsinghpur and had informed his brother, Ashok Kori, accordingly. Since he did not reach Narsinghpur till 15.03.2011, the missing person report came to be registered.

5. During the course of investigation, the police personnel of Police Station Harrai, along with police driver Prakash, had gone to Seoni, where the accused Pradeep Kori spoke to the driver, obtained his mobile number, and thereafter repeatedly enquired as to upon whom the police were casting suspicion. This conduct gave rise to suspicion against the appellants, whereupon they were arrested and interrogated, and their memorandum statements were recorded.

6. The memorandum statements of accused Pradeep, accused Jahid, and accused Ejaj were recorded during interrogation. On the basis of the facts disclosed therein and in accordance with the seizure memos, information was obtained regarding the deceased's clothes and the withdrawal of money through the deceased's passbook and ATM card. It is further ascertained that the ATM card had been issued in favour of the deceased. Letters were thereafter addressed to the concerned banks in respect of the ATMs from which the money had been withdrawn, and the relevant information and CCTV camera CDs were obtained. As sufficient material was found for proceeding against the accused persons, a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code was filed before the learned Trial Court.

7. The trial court has framed the charge of aforesaid Section on the applicant and co-accused person. The applicant refuses to accept the charges and wished to face the trial.

8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and exhibited the documents. In the statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the allegations, pleaded innocence, and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present criminal case.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 392, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge, in paragraph No. 23 of the impugned judgment, has categorically recorded a finding that there is no eye- witness to the incident and that the entire prosecution case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence. So far as the present appellant is concerned, the only incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged recovery of the ATM card and certain other articles, which is said to have been proved through the testimony of PW-25, Chandrashekhar, the Investigating Officer. There is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the appellant had, in any manner used the said ATM card or any of the articles allegedly recovered from him. A reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly indicates that their testimonies are not of such a nature from which an inference regarding the guilt of the appellant can safely and legally be deduced. The totality of the circumstances brought on record clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are wholly insufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offences alleged against him. A plain reading of the documentary and oral evidence on record reveals that no offence under Sections 392, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present appellant. The evidence on record is too scanty and insufficient to bring home the charges under Sections 392, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is replete with omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies and therefore, no reliance can safely be placed upon such evidence. The learned Trial Judge has completely misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of law while convicting and sentencing the appellant. Despite the nature and quality of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 392, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which is improper, erroneous and has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form a complete chain of events and do not establish the culpability of the appellant for the alleged offence of murder. It is also submitted that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is unduly harsh, excessive and wholly unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Per contra, counsel for State has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the appellant and submitted that on bare perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that the appellant has been found guilty of committing the grave offence punishable under Section 392, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are based upon a proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The impugned judgment is justified and well-reasoned, as the guilt of the appellants has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. It stands established from the prosecution evidence that the appellant has committed grave and heinous offences. The offences committed by the appellant are serious in nature and have been duly proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The appeal is based on untenable and misconceived grounds. It is respectfully submitted that no ground whatsoever exists for allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are based upon a proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned, justified and legally sustainable, as the guilt of the appellant stands established beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has recorded its findings on the basis of proper appreciation of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence brought on record. The prosecution evidence clearly establishes that the appellant committed the grave offence punishable under Section 392, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences committed by the appellant are extremely serious in nature.

11. Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the record.

12. Upon perusal of the record, it is revealed that, on the basis of the facts disclosed in their memorandum statements, the passbook and ATM card were seized from the exclusive possession of the appellant and other co- accused, and amounts were also withdrawn from the account of the deceased. Withdrawal of money from an account is not possible without the ATM card and the confidential PIN. It is only when both are available that withdrawal of money can be effected. In such circumstances, the seizure of the ATM card from the possession of the appellant and other co-accused and the fact that money continued to be withdrawn through the ATM card, which was not recovered, even after the death of the deceased, clearly indicate that the accused persons acted in a planned and systematic manner. These facts complete the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. It is clear from the record that the appellant, along with the other co-accused, had, during the night intervening 10th and 11th March, 2011, formed a common intention to cause the death of Bhuvneshwar Prasad. In furtherance of their common intention, they forcibly abducted him and, by putting him in fear, wrongfully obtained his ATM card, bank passbook and other articles with the intention of deriving unlawful gain. Thereafter, they took him to the fields of Village Hadai, where they caused his death by pressing his mouth with a cloth. In order to prevent identification of the dead body, they burnt his face and thereby caused the disappearance of evidence. Furthermore, amounts continued to be withdrawn from the account of the deceased by using his ATM card and confidential PIN code up to 18.03.2011.

13. We have carefully re-examined the documentary evidence, the testimonies of the witnesses and we find that the learned trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392, 364, 302 and 201 of IPC and in awarding the sentenced accordingly. There is no substantial force in the arguments advance or in the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal to warrant any interference with the judgment of the trial court.

14. Consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial court is accordingly upheld.

15. All pending applications, if any, be disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be kept in the record and record be sent back to the trial court for further and necessary proceedings.