Circumstantial evidence must create an unbroken chain of events directly linking the accused to the crime, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as confirmed by the review of mobile records and CCTV footage.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Malda in connection with Sessions Case No. 62/2021 (Sessions Trial Case No. 43/2021) at the behest of the appellant.

2. By passing the impugned judgment and order this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year and they were also convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appellants have preferred this instant appeal.

4. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

“The case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant Abhisekh Rai stating, interalia, that his uncle Hanuman Rai was a Railway employee and was residing at the Quarter No. 349/A at the Railway Kalibari Colony, P.S. English Bazar, Dist. Malda. It is further stated that on 26.10.2010 at about 9 PM, this de-facto complainant received a phone call from the neighbour of the victim Samudh Gosai from whom he came to know that his uncle was lying in his quarter with bleeding injury and was naked and senseless condition on the floor. This de-facto complainant and other local persons took the victim to the emergency department of Malda Medical College and Hospital and the on-duty doctor declared him as dead. This de-facto complainant suspected that the victim was murdered and as such, he filed this complaint before the concerned police station. Over the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant a case being English Bazar P.S. Case No. 1010/2020 dated 27.10.2020 was started under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”

5. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the Prosecuting Agency against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed against these appellants by the Trial Court under Section 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the appellants and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In this case 17 (seventeen) witnesses were examined by the side of the prosecution. Documents as well as seized materials were marked as exhibits in this case. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence but certain documents in support of their contentions were marked as exhibits in this case.

7. Mr. Amitabha Karmakar, learned Advocate for the appellants said that there is no direct evidence in the instant case and the prosecution case was solely depended upon circumstantial evidence. It is said by the learned Advocate that in order to complete the chain of circumstances, prosecution tried to establish that two mobile phones were seized from the possession of these appellants but from the seizure list it would appear that there is no mention about the date and time of seizure and no independent witness was there in the seizure list and as such, the story of seizure is absolutely false and fabricated. As per submission of the learned Advocate the p