A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's innocence.

By Rajani Dubey, J

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.55/2018 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302 , 376 and 201 of IPC and sentencing him in the manner described as under :-

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Ansuiya Bai. On 28.07.2018, the police received an information that the dead body of deceased was lying in her house. On such information, the police personnel proceeded to the spot and saw that deceased Ansuiya Bai was lying dead in her house. On a complaint made by Arvind Yadav, dehati merg No. 0/18 was recorded and the matter was taken for investigation. Inquest on the body of deceased was prepared under Ex.P/10 and dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Nagri, where Dr. Suraj Kumar Sahu (PW-16) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and found following injuries/symptoms :-

i. Whole body was swelled up. Maggots were present.

ii. Skin was peeling off from body.Putrification was started. There was no rigor mortis.

iii. Face had blue black discoloration, eyes buldge out, nose depressed & blood was coming from nose with frothy fluid. Mouth was open & tongue protruded.

iv Nails of all four limbs had cyanosed,

v. Abdomen distended, fecal discharge present.

vi. Blood was coming from nose and mouth with frothy fluid.

3. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the mode of death to be compression of nose and mouth by any article or by hand and the cause of death was asphyxia. The Autopsy Surgeon has also opined the type of death may be homicidal.

4. During the course of investigation, it was found that on 27.07.2018, the appellant and deceased Ansuiya Bai consumed alcohol in her house and the appellant with bad intention committed sexual intercourse with her. It was also revealed that when the deceased objected the act of the appellant, he pressed nose and mouth of deceased by bed sheet and caused her death. He also took out Rs.1650/- from the purse of deceased and spent it on food and drink and broke the mobile and SIM of deceased & threw the SIM and battery in the courtyard of Laxminath. Thereafter, the offence under Sections 376 , 302 and 201 of IPC was registered against the appellant.

5. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Court. After filing of charge sheet, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 376 , 302 and 201 of IPC against the accused/appellants.

6. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

7. The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the conviction of the accused/appellants is based on circumstantial evidence but none of the circumstances from which the inference of guilt of appellant can be drawn has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore there can be no inference that it was the appellant who committed the murder. Learned counsel further submits that evidence of so called witnesses to last seen i.e. Sandhya Nag (PW-