In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of a motive in such cases weighs in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Both the appeals are being taken up together as they arise out of the same judgment and order, by which the appellants have been convicted.

2. Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.08.1995 passed by the learned IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No.37 of 1991 arising out of Paliganj P.S. case No.17 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 364 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and also rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 364 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. Facts in brief which are necessary may be taken note of. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.09.1989 at about 7:30 A.M., the informant came to know that a dead body was lying in the paddy field situated south of Kurkuri Bridge. The informant (P.W.6) along with his son, namely, Ajay Kumar Singh (P.W.2), Ram Kumar Singh (P.W.3), Kanhyai Ram as well as other villagers went there and identified that the dead body was of Arun Kumar Singh (deceased), nephew of the informant. The informant told the police that on 21.09.1989 at about 5:00 P.M., accused appellants Brahmdeo Singh, Bishundeo Singh, Shailendra Singh, Munna Singh, Sanjay Singh and Sudama Singh came to his house on a tempo. Brahamdeo Singh was driving the tempo. They called the deceased and interacted with him. Thereafter the deceased took some money from his mother and went along with them towards Paliganj on the same tempo. When the deceased did not return till late night, the informant went to the house of the above referred appellants in order to enquire regarding the whereabouts of the deceased. The informant found that the above referred appellants had also not returned till then. By then in the morning, the informant received information regarding a dead body lying in a paddy field near Kurkuri Bridge. He went there and identified the dead body as that of his nephew Arun Kumar Singh. There were stabbing injuries below the left eye and above right eye brow. There were injuries on his neck also. On the basis of the statement of the informant, the present was registered against the appellants in both the appeals.

4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions and Charge under Sections 302/34 IPC, 201/34 IPC and 364/34 IPC was framed against the Appellants. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and were put on trial.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses, namely, Triveni (P.W.1), Ajay Kumar (P.W.2), Ram Kumar Singh (P.W.3), Kaushalya Devi (P.W.4), Vijay Singh (P.W.5), Ram Byash Singh (P.W.6), Dr. Radha Kant Choudhary (P.W.7), who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and Shekh Noor Mohammad (P.W.8), Investigating Officer of the case. The defence has not examined any witness in support of the case.

6. It is the case of the appellants before this Court that none of the prosecution witnesses are eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The only evidence which has come against the appellants is that they were all seen together with the deceased. Except for this, there is no other evidence which has come during trial against the appellants. Therefore, the chain of circumstances was not complete to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It has also been argued that in the present prosecution except for P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.8, all the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased