IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Per Rajani Dubey, J

Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.1.2020 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST No.22/2019, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused/appellant Kishore Sahu had borrowed Rs.4,500/- from deceased Prakash Verma and as the deceased used to demand his money back frequently and disrespectfully, appellant Kishore Sahu got annoyed of it and hence hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused/appellant Rajkumar Verma for committing murder of Prakash Verma. In furtherance of that conspiracy, on 10.10.2018 appellant Kishore Sahu called the deceased at the place of occurrence on the pretext of returning his money and when the deceased demanded his money, appellant Kishore Sahu assaulted him with knife on his neck whereas appellant Rajkumar Verma assaulted with blade on his neck and thus committed his murder. In order to cause disappearance of evidence of the crime, the dead body was thrown into the bushes and after burning the bloodstained clothes, the ashes were thrown in the mines. However, on 11.10.2018 on information being received regarding dead body of an unknown person lying on the spot, Dehati merg intimation and Dehati Nalishi were registered and the investigation was set in motion.

3. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, seizure of certain articles were made; the accused/appellants were taken into custody on suspicion and their memorandum statements were recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellants. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 120B, 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC against the accused persons, which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in their defence.

5. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence these appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants would submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record and rather it is based on conjecture and surmises. There is absolutely no evidence against the appellants to connect them with the crime in question. PW-6 Manish Kumar Nirmalkar and PW-10 Umesh Verma, witnesses to memorandum and seizure have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. There is no eyewitness in the present case and it rests wholly upon circumstantial evidence but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to substantiate its case. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant Kishore Sahu only on the ground that he borrowed money from the deceased and the deceased was repeatedly demanding his money back. As regards appellant Rajkumar Verma, the prosecution has failed to esta