The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment, order of conviction and sentence dated November 1, 2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2006 arising out of Sessions Case No.143 of 2006. The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- only in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for finding him guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. as also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C.

2. The other four (4) accused persons namely, Sudhir Rajwar, Visam Rajwar, Bidesh Rajwar and Bhiku Rajwar were found not guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and they were acquitted accordingly.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as under:-

A written complaint dated March 5, 2005, was received by the Officer-in-Charge, Kenda Police Station, Purulia from one Sri Santosh Mahato (PW 1). According to the above letter of complaint, his cousin rother namely, Hashu Mahato, since deceased, went out of his residence on March 2, 2005, at 19.00 hours. He did not come back to his house. On March 5, 2005, at about 13.00 hours the dead body of the aforesaid person was discovered in the Kamta Dam in floating condition. Mark of injury on the dead body of the aforesaid deceased was found.

According to the above written complaint, there was existence of illicit intimacy of the above deceased person with one Parbati Rajwar, wife of Indra Rajwar of the same village. For that reason, the deceased was beaten by the husband of Parbati Rajwar and their relations namely, Sudhir Rajwar, Visam Rajwar, Bidesh Rajwar and Bhiku Rajwar few years back. The aforesaid Parbati Rajwar made an attempt to kill the deceased with a sharp cutting weapon (Vojali) one year back before the date of marriage of the deceased. The appellant had intimacy with the deceased. According to the letter of complaint, the appellant took the deceased out of his house on the date of incident taking advantage of his intimacy with the deceased and killed him. Thereafter, the appellant and his associates dropped the dead body of the deceased in the water of Kamta Dam situated near their village.

4. On the basis of the above written compliant formal FIR being Kenda P.S. Case No.06/2005 dated March 5, 2005 was lodged against five (5) accused persons including the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/201/120B I.P.C. PW 14, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest examination on the dead body of the deceased on March 5, 2005 at about 18.45 hours in connection with the above FIR. From the preliminary investigation the names of five (5) persons including the appellant surfaced as recorded in the above inquest report. PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and one Dilip Choudhury were the witness of the above inquest report.

5. Post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW 13 on March 6, 2005 at 13.10 hours. According to the above post mortem report, the cause of death was due to asphyxia and shock due to throttling and other injuries mentioned in the above post mortem report which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.

6. After conducting investigation, PW 14 submitted charge sheet no.21 of 2005 dated August 30, 2005, in the matter against five (5) accused persons including the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C.

7. Charge was framed against five (5) accused persons including the appellant on June 7, 2006 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 & 20