In circumstantial evidence cases, all links in the chain must be proven conclusively to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2ndCourt, PaschimMedinipur dated 27.03.2019 and 29.03.2019 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 01.04.04.

2. By passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction the learned Trial Court found this appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 364/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life without remission and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment to fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 364 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction the present appeal has been preferred at the behest of the appellant.

4. The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant stating interalia, that on 31.12.2002 at about 10 A.M. his eldest son namely, Biswajit Soren who was aged about 13 years at that point of time and was a student of class-VII of Nekurmeni High School, went to school but he did not return home as usual after the school hours for the day. The de-facto complainant and his family members started looking for his son and lodged a missing diary at Belda Police Station. Afterwards the de-facto complainant came to know from some persons as well as classmates of his son that on the very date of the incident after the school hours of the day, in the afternoon this appellant Raison Hansda of village Manikadagor kidnapped the victim from the front of the school with intention to kill him due to his previous grudge. Over the complaint a case was started being Belda P.S. Case No. 02/03 dated 04.01.2003 under Section 364/302 of Indian Penal Code.

5. Thus, the criminal law was set in motion. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 364/302 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed by the Trial Court against these accused persons under Sections 364/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. In this case, prosecution examined 15 (fifteen) witnesses to establish the charge against this accused appellant. Documentary as well as seized articles have been marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution.

7. Ms. Suchismita Dutta, learned Advocate for the appellant said that there are apparent contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses and as such, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. It is said by the learned Advocate that the whole case was based upon circumstantial evidence and there was no ocular evidence on record to show that this appellant is the actual person who kidnapped and murdered the victim and none else. It is said by the learned Advocate that PW6, Phulmoni Mandi is the only witness who stated before the Magistrate at the time of recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she found this appellant was carrying the victim Biswajit Soren on his cycle but at the time of giving deposition she did not state the name of the victim and only said that he found t