In order to justify the inference of guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, all the incriminating facts and circumstances must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.

S. Hoda, J. - This revision application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been presented by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 22.8.90 passed by 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in session trial no. 127/84 by which he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for discharging him from charges against him under section 302/ 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The fact which emanates from the fard beyan is that on 9.1.82 deceased Ayodhya Pd. Singh who was an employee of the Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited working as cabin men's attendance clerk at its Sijua Colliery was going to Sijua Station to catch train for going home. His son the informant, Ramdas also went with him upto Bhelatand Chowk. As the deceased could not get any Conveyance to go to the station the informant returned back leaving his father alone to proceed to the station on foot. At about 10.30 P.M. A. P. Singh, a Security Officer, of the Tata Sijua Coal Mines came to the residence of the informant and informed him that his father had been shot dead and the body was lying on the road near the house of Jagdeo Pasi at Sijua. On receiving this information the informant along with the Security Officer and few other persons went at the spot and found his father lying dead. The deceased's hand bag, Chappal and money all were intact in his possession. It was further alleged that about 8 months back charge-sheet was submitted against the deceased in connection with theft of some iron materials belonging to the Tata Iron & Steel Company and the main person behind the initiation of departmental proceeding was one I. Vishwa, a Security Officer of the said Company. The said charge-sheet was submitted allegedly on the basis of a report made by the petitioner and the enquiries were to commence in that proceeding in which I. Vishwa and the petitioner were to be examined as the management's witnesses. In the fardbeyan, it was also alleged that the deceased had threatened the petitioner and I. Vishwa that he would make public various omissions and commissions committed by them against the interest of the Company if they proceeded to take any action against him. On behalf of I. Vishwa and the petitioner one Shamim Khan a local Mukhiya had approached the deceased and threatened him of dire consequences if he disclosed anything against them, Further it was also alleged that on the date of occurrence when he had gone to Bhelatand Hospital, alongwith his father they met I. Vishwa there who enquired from his father about his programme of going home. According to the informant deceased had no enmity with any body else except the petitioner and I. Vishwa and as such he had suspicion against them and Shamim Khan. On the basis of the aforesaid facts Jorapokhar P. S. Case no. 6/82 was registered against unknown person. Investigation of the case was conducted by the police and ultimately charge-sheet against the petitioner and I. Vishwa was submitted under section 302/120 (B) I.P.C.

3. Mr. Laheri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that on perusal of the record of the case and the relevant documents, it is evident that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.

4. It is well settled that the charge under section 302 read with section 120 (B) of the I.P.C could be framed against the accused provided the record of the case and documents submitted therewith prima facie support charge and at least raises strong suspicion against the accused.

5. In 'Circumstantial Evidence' by Wills 6th Edition, it has been pointed out that circumstantial evidence means the evidence afforded not by the direct testimony of an eye witness to the fact to be proved but by the bearing upon that fact or other and subsidiary fact which are relied upon as inconsistent with any result other than truth of the principal fact. In the case of Hukam v. State of Rajasthan, 1977 SC 10