The duty of the prosecution to prove all circumstances beyond doubt and form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2009 and 16.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 3(8)14 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. On 27.12.2013 Sk. Farhad, a 10 year old boy, had gone out to fly kite with his friends. He did not return home in the evening. His mother Rasida Begum (P.W.2) became worried and started searching for him. The boy could not be found. On the next day, that is, 28.12.2013 in the morning, one Sk. Salauddin (P.W.7) found the body of a boy lying in the canal near Simulhanda Primary School. He informed his father Sk. Badiruddin (P.W. 8) who in turn informed the family members of the missing child. Body of the child was identified by his mother and other relations. It was sent for post mortem examination. Two days later, father of the boy, Sk. Khalilur Rahaman (P.W. 1) returned to his native village from his place of work at Mumbai. He lodged written complaint alleging his son had been murdered by an unknown person and Panskura P.S. Case No. 392/13 dated 30.12.2013 was registered for investigation. Couple of days later, Sk. Khalilur Rahaman made statement implicating the appellant who was the Moulabi of a nearby mosque. It was alleged that the appellant had illicit relationship with Rasida, mother of the boy. The child had disclosed the illicit relationship to his father and accordingly appellant nursed a grudge against him. In course of investigation, a gunny bag and rope were recovered from an open spot near the mosque. Appellant absconded and was later arrested on 12.03.2014. Charge sheet was filed against him and charges were framed under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove its case. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

3. Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits there is no direct evidence implicating the appellant in the crime. First Information Report was registered against unknown accused. Motive to commit the crime has not been proved. There is no evidence on record that the child was last seen with the appellant prior to his death. Gunny bag and rope were recovered from an open space and did not implicate the appellant in any manner whatsoever. Appellant had gone to his native place in Bihar and was subsequently arrested at Panskura Railway Station. It cannot be said that he had absconded. Even so, mere abscondence does not establish guilt of an accused. Circumstances proved in the instant case do not lead to an irresistible conclusion of guilt against the appellant. Hence, he is entitled to an order of acquittal.

4. Mr. Banerjee, with Ms. Ghosh, learned Counsels for the State argues appellant had strong motive to commit the crime. The child had seen the appellant and his mother Rasida in a compromising position. He reported the matter to his father, Sk. Khalilur Rahaman who reprimanded the appellant. Hence, he nursed grudge against the child. Victim suffered ante mortem head injury and died due to drowning. Appellant had removed his body in a gunny bag tied with a rope and dumped it in the canal. The said gunny bag and rope were recovered from a spot behind the mosque. After the incident, appellant absconded and repeatedly changed his SIM Card to avoid being detected. Finally, he was arrested on 12.03.2014. These circumstances clearly establish his guilt and