Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.

Judgment :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Sarguja, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No.40/2016, by which the appellant herein has been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as under :

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 23.12.2015 at 5:00 P.M. at village Kunmera, under Sarna bridge on the road of Kursipar and Togri, Police Station- Sitapur, the appellant herein assaulted one Prabha (now deceased) by heavy stone, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and in order to screen himself from the offence, hide the dead body near Sarna bridge; thereby the offence has been committed. It is alleged that the appellant & deceased though not married, but they were living as husband & wife on the date of offence. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Dehati Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-3, Dehati Nalsi was registered vide Ex.P-4, Merg Intimation was Registered vide Ex.P-4A, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-21, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body of deceased Prabha was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Bhajgawali (PW-5), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-14, according to which, cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory arrest due to skull fracture and brain haemorrhage and death was homicidal in nature. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that it has not been proved that the deceased was legally wedded wife of the appellant. He further submits that Lalita Lakda (PW-7) who has lastly seen the appellant along-with deceased has already turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, the appellant and deceased both were lastly seen on 21.12.2015, but the dead body was recovered on 24.12.2015 vide Ex.P-3 (Dehati Merg Intimation) and Vinod Kumar Bhagat (PW-2) to whom the appellant is allegedly given extra judicial confession has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. The first que