Circumstantial evidence can support a murder conviction if it forms a complete chain of circumstances leading to guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the accused's conduct and failure to explain incriminating evidence.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in ST No.53/2017 convicting and sentencing the appellant as under:

All the substantive jail sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Gajendra Diwan through a written complaint informed the police of Police Station - Magarload that Suklal Kamar, Vedram Kanwar and Govind Ram Sahu of his village came to him on 22.7.2017 and informed that a few days ago they had gone near Darra Dodgi Nala for working under the Rojgar Guarantee Scheme. When they went inside the jungle for catching a hen, near the Nala by the side of saja tree they saw burnt skeleton bones of unknown male or female and out of fear did not narrate the same to anyone. However, when a few days ago they came to know that wife and son of one Vedprakash @ Prakar Kanwar of his village are missing, they have come to inform about it to him. Thereupon the complainant went to the spot along with them and found some burnt pieces of human bones.

Based on the above information, the police of Police Station – Magarload registered Merg No.32/17 and during enquiry it was found that a missing report No.14/17 in respect of Sarojani Mahanand and Priyanshu Kumar has been registered at Police Station – Kurud. Further enquiry revealed that deceased Sarojani Mahanand had affair with Vedprakash and they were living as husband and wife and from this relationship Priyanshu was born. Vedprakash was going to perform engagement with one Tikeshwari of his community on 26.2.2017 and when it came to the knowledge of Sarojani Mahanand, there was quarrel between the two and therefore, in order to get rid of them, Vedprakash committed their murder by strangulation. After murder, he concealed the dead bodies in a pit and burnt them in order to cause disappearance of evidence of the crime.

03. During the course of investigation, spot maps were prepared, inquest report of bones of the deceased persons were prepared and memorandum of the appellant was recorded which led to seizure of 02 pieces of tibia bone, 02 pieces of skulls, 26 pieces of bones etc. The seized bones were sent for forensic examination and expert opinion. Blood sample of the accused was obtained for DNA test. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. As per FSL report, the accused was found to be biological father of deceased Priyanshu. However, no DNA profile could be obtained from the tibia bone alleged to be of deceased Sarojani Mahanand. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC was filed against the accused. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC on two counts for committing murder of Sarojani and Priyanshu and causing disappearance of evidence of the crime, which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial.

04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

06. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and liable to be set aside. In