IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2018 by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted & sentenced as under:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that both the accused persons Narayan Raut & Ashok Yadav and the deceased persons Lalaram and Leelabai are related to each other. The deceased persons Lalaram and Leelabai used to stay in a hutment situated over the agricultural land at village Suarmal. On 16.08.2017 when P.W.1 Haslekh went to his field, he saw that entire hutment has been burnt wherein Lalaram and Leelabai used to stay. Accordingly, after it was found that both Lalaram and Leelabai have died of burn injuries, it was intimated to the Police and the merg was registered vide Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2. The dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem and initially though it was apprehended that the incident of fire took place due to short circuit of the electricity but it was found to be incorrect and the death was due to burn injuries. Against the unknown person, case was registered under Section 302 & 201 of IPC and during investigation, appellants Narayan Raut and Ashok Yadav were apprehended and on their memorandum statements (Ex.P.20 & Ex.P.21), the wooden club was recovered vide Ex.P.25. During investigation, Police collected the evidence with respect to the mobile location of Narayan Raut, which was situated near the tower where the vicinity of the hutment was there and incident took place there. After recording the entire statements and collection of other documentary evidence, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence placed before it, convicted and sentenced the appellants based on the circumstantial evidence. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court is completely misconceived. There are six circumstances considered about the conduct of the appellants before the incident, location of mobile phones near the hutment and after the incident though the appellants were related to the deceased persons, but they did not attend the last rituals and ceremonies. He further submits that the fact, which was disclosed by the appellants that appellant Ashok Yadav was treating his wife was not accepted as an evidence and the motive of the incident is stated to be quarrel. He would submit that all the circumstances nowhere pointed out the involvement of the accused/appellants to the incident. He would further submit that P.W.1 Haslekh, who is son of the deceased persons, categorically stated that though appellants participated in the Teejnahawan (3rd day of death ceremony), which took place after the death ceremony, but the trial Court has completely ignored in recording such finding. He would also submit that the tower location though was projected to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused persons, but the tower location can only show the presence of persons, however, call detail report (CDR) cannot give the exact range and the coverage of the mobile location, therefore, the fact that the appellants the