The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, which must meet established legal principles.

Judgment :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

This criminal appeal preferred by two appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C . is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.13 of 2015 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ratan Sahu and another) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (CG), whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:

[Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently]

(2) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that in the intervening night of 21/22.02.2015, between 07:00 PM to 11 AM, at 11, Dandkarwan, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Chandaura, District Surajpur (CG), the two appellants herein, firstly shared common intention of killing their brother, namely, Krishna Prasad (herein after referred to as the “deceased”) and, in furtherance thereof, strangulated his neck by means of scarf and, further, in order to screen themselves from the legal punishment, threw the dead-body of the deceased in the pit behind their house and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences.

(3) It is further case of the prosecution that initially the accused-appellant No.02 reported the matter to the police to the effect that on 21.02.2015 at about 09:00 AM his elder brother (deceased) had gone to the market but did not return back, on the basis of which, missing person report was registered and wheels of investigation started running. However, during the course of investigation, the dead-body of the deceased was found in a pit behind his house and, thereafter, it was revealed that the accused-appellants have committed murder of the deceased and threw the dead-body in the pit behind their house. On the basis of which, merg intimation (Ex.P/26) and FIR (Ex.P/20 was registered against the appellants. Spot map and panchnama were also prepared vide Ex.P/14 & Ex.P/05 respectively. Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/06 and inquest proceedings were also conducted vide Ex.P/07. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/04), conducted by Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (PW-07) and Dr. Rajesh Shresth (PW-08), it has been opined that the cause of death of the deceased asphyxia due to strangulation and nature of death is homicidal.

(4) Thereafter, the accused-appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/16 & Ex.P/17 respectively. Statement of star witness, namely, Ramsevak (PW-11) under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P/09. One scarf wrapped over the neck of the dead-body of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/05. The said seized scarf alongwith blod-stained soil and plaine soil seized from the spot were sent for chemical analysis and, as per FSL report (though not exhibited, but annexed at Page No.47-50 of the paper- book), it has been opined that stains of blood were found only on the said scarf, which was seized from the dead-body of the deceased. Further, in the present case, sniffer dog proceeding has also been conducted and, as per sniffer dog proceeding panchnama (Ex.P/03), it has been mentioned that after smelling the scarf, which was found wrapped over the neck of the dead- body of the deceased, the sniffer dog went directly inside the house of the appellant No.01, where after entering into the room of the appellant No.01, the sniffer dog went into another room, situated behind the said room, stopped therein and started smelling saliva and blood present on the floor. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the compete