The main legal point established is that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete for conviction, and suspicion cannot replace proof.

Judgment

B. N. Agrawal, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant-Anjlus dungdung along with his brother Jowakim dungdung, accused Silbestor Dungdung and rajesh Yadav @ Raju Gowala was chargesheeted by the police. Before the commencement of trial as Jowakim Dungdung died, the other three accused persons, including the appellant, were tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court, all of them were convicted under Section 302/120b of the Penal Code. So far the appellant is concerned, he was awarded death penalty whereas other two accused persons were sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the three accused persons were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal being preferred before the High Court of jharkhand, their conviction and sentence have been upheld.

( 2 ) THE short facts are that on the basis of fardbayan of one Kajmir Kerketta-informant (PW 19} recorded on 24th November, 1998 at 5. 30 p. m. , a First Information Report was drawn up at Simdega police station on the same day at 10. 30 p. m. against unknown persons in which it was stated that the informant was next door neighbour of Benedik Dungdung,and on 23rd November, 1998 at about 7. 00 p. m. , he had seen Benedik Dungdung and his family members in their house. On 24th November, 1998, as nobody came out from the house of benedik Dungdung till 7. 30 in the morning, the informant went to the courtyard and found that Benedik Dungdung along with his wife and four children was lying dead in the house, whereafter he informed about the same to the other villagers. It was further stated that a land dispute was going on between Benedik dungdung (one of the deceased) and the appellant, who was nobody else than his nephew, for which panchayati was also held in the village sometime before the date of the alleged occurrence which was never attended by the appellant and his brother rather they had given out threats to kill the deceased. In the month of September, 1998, a letter was received by Jowakim Dungdung stating therein that the appellant had died. It was also stated that there was rumour in the village that the appellant with the help of accused Jowakim dungdung and others murdered Benedik dungdung, his wife and four children.

( 3 ) THE police after registering the case took up investigation, during the course of which, it is said to have recovered the aforesaid letter as well as bloodstained balwa and tangi on the disclosure statement made by accused Rajesh Yadav @ Raju Gowala apart from the recovery of one torch cell, knife and a railway ticket from the pocket of the appellant. Upon the conclusion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the aforesaid accused persons, including the appellant, but as accused Jowakim Dungdung died, only three accused persons were tried.

( 4 ) DEFENCE of the accused persons was that they were innocent, had no complicity with the crime but falsely implicated in the present case because of animosity.

( 5 ) DURING trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses and got various documents exhibited. Defence, however, did not examine any witness. Upon the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the three accused persons, including the appellant, as stated above, and the same was confirmed in appeal by the High Court. Against the order of conviction, accused Rajesh Yadav @ Raju Gowala and Silbestor Dungdung did not move this Court whereas the present appeal by the appellant on leave to appeal having been granted.

( 6 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, in the present case, there is no direct evidence but it is a case of circumstantial evidence. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon following circumstances against the accused persons:

I) The appellant had a motive to murder the deceased-Benedik dungdung and his family members as a land dispute was going on from before the date of the alleged occurrence between him and the de