The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, including motive, witness testimonies, and the recovery of incriminating articles, can be sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th February, 2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 12(6) of 2002 (Sessions Trial No. 4(7) of 2002 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more.

The appellant has been charged as follows :

' That, you on or about the 16.01.1998 after 1.00 P.M. within village Teliaberia under P.S. Onda, did commit murder knowingly causing the death of Minati Garai @ Phani and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.'

The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 16.01.1998 at 1:00 p.m., Subhas Chandra Garai (P.W. 1) had returned home from his sweetmeat shop. He found his younger brother, Jagabandhu (P.W. 3) had not returned after watering potato plants in the field. The younger sister Minati @ kali was sent to serve lunch to his younger brother who was still working in the field. after sometime, Jagabandhu returned home and informed others he had not met Minati but Minati did not return home. Haradhan Garai (P.W.2), another brother of Minati, went out to search for her. after sometime he returned and informed that Minati had been killed. appellant had smeared vermilion on her forehead at the 'shivasthan' and had taken her into the jungle. There he slit her throat and fled away. Some of the villagers saw the appellant fleeing away after the murder and informed Haradhan. The latter found the body of Minati lying supine with her throat slit. appellant was not found at his home. It is further alleged appellant had been disturbing Minati and had proposed to marry her. Minati refused. as a result, he took her to the jungle and killed her. F.I.R. being Onda P.S. Case No. 4/1998 dated 16.01.1998 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant on the written complaint of P.W. 1. Police went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report. appellant was arrested and on his showing his bloodstained wearing apparels and weapon of offence, that is, razor recovered. Charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was charged, as aforesaid. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.

Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, trial Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 13th February, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellant.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. all the circumstances have not been duly proved. The chain of circumstances also does not unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. More specifically, it is argued the place of occurrence has not to be established. No blood stained earth was recovered from the place of occurrence. In the rough sketch map, place of occurrence is noted in a Bansdanga jungle which is a wide area. P.Ws. 4, 8 and 10 are chance witnesses who rushed to the spot hearing cries of the victim. Victim had suffered a cut throat injury which improbablises the fact that she could cry out after the attack. Hence, presence of the witnesses at the spot and their version is most unrealistic. Their depositions also suffer from various embellishments and inconsistencies. Place of arrest of the appellant has not been proved. No arrest memo was produced. Disclosure statement of the appellant had not been recorded in writing. Hence, recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant is most doubtful. FSL report does not prove origin of blood on the wearing apparels as well as weapon of offence. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.

Mr. Ghatak, appearing for the State submits appellant had motive to commit the murder. He had proposed to marry the victim w