Evidence of chance witnesses, if reliable and probable, cannot be discarded.

The deceased, Kishor Madanlal Khatri, engaged in property and real estate business, had business dealings with various builders, including Accused No.2 – Ranjitsingh Chungde.

On November 3, 2015, at noon, the deceased was called to Balaji Mall, where he met Delhi-based traders Khushwaji and Vikratji, and Accused No.2 to discuss the mall's inauguration.

Around 1:00 p.m., Accused No.2 returned to the mall in a white Tata Safari (MH-30/P-3040), and the deceased left with him in the vehicle to see a field in Somthana Shivar.

Later that afternoon, a dead body was found near Somthana, identified as Kishor Khatri.

Based on an oral report by PW8 – Dilip Khatri, Crime No. 169 of 2015 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Investigating Officer seized blood-stained soil, pieces of rope, and the deceased's mobile phone from the spot.

The Tata Safari, two firearms, and live cartridges were seized from Accused No.2's farmhouse.

A post-mortem examination was conducted.

The appellant (Accused No.3) was arrested, and a knife (Kukari) and certain clothes were seized at his instance.

After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the trial court framed charges against the accused, including the appellant, for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the IPC, and Sections 4/25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The trial court convicted the appellant for murder and criminal conspiracy.

1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the death of Kishor Khatri was homicidal?

2. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution form a complete chain unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant acted in furtherance of common intention and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy?

4. Whether interference is called for in the impugned judgment?

The court applied provisions of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 302 (murder), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 120-B (punishment of criminal conspiracy).

It also considered Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the relevance of motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.

Furthermore, the court examined Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the admissibility of information leading to discovery.

The court referenced precedents from the Supreme Court, including Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana (1983) regarding "chance witnesses".

Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) on scrutinizing eyewitness testimony.

Boby v. State of Kerala (2023) and State of Karnataka v. David Rozario (2002) concerning the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor (1946) on the requirement that information must distinctly relate to the fact discovered under Section 27.

The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Kishor Khatri's death was homicidal, based on the numerous ante-mortem injuries, including a deep incised wound on the neck and a firearm injury on the chest, as detailed in the post-mortem report and supported by ballistic evidence.

The testimony of eyewitnesses PW5 and PW10, despite initial delays in reporting, was deemed natural and reliable, corroborated by medical and ballistic findings.

The court dismissed the "chance witness" argument by citing Rana Pratap and Thangaiya, finding the witnesses' presence at Somthana plausible given their connections to the village.

The court upheld the recovery of the Kukari at the appellant’s instance under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that the discovery of the weapon satisfied the legal requirements, even without a hyper-detailed description in the memorandum, as established in Boby v. State of Kerala and State of Karnataka v. David Rozario.

The court noted the "last seen" circumstance, with the deceased having been seen with Accused No.2 in the Tata Safari shortly before his death.

The subsequent recovery of the vehicle with blood stains and firearms at Accused No.2's farmhouse.

The appellant’s unexplained absence from duty after the incident was considered an important circumstance under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

Minor investigative lapses were deemed insufficient to undermine the core prosecution case, which was built on strong ocular, medical, and ballistic evidence.

Finally, the court found clear evidence of common intention and criminal conspiracy, indicated by the coordinated assault using two different deadly weapons.

Their presence together at a secluded location, and their subsequent abscondence, aligning with the principles for inferring conspiracy from proved circumstances.

Confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the IPC.

The court held that the prosecution successfully proved the homicidal death of Kishor Khatri and the appellant's active participation beyond a reasonable doubt, concluding that the ocular evidence, corroborated by medical and ballistic findings, discoveries during the investigation, and surrounding circumstances, formed a consistent chain pointing to his guilt.

The findings of the learned Sessions Judge were deemed justified and free from perversity or misapplication of law.