The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases where motive and identity are crucial for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.07.2014 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in S.T. No.118/2011 whereby and whereunder appellants have been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described below :-

2. The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the accused/appellants is that on 09.05.2011 at about 8:15 p.m., the accused persons, wearing masks and due to prior enmity, threw acid on the face and front part of the body of Krishna Bareth at his shop, as a result of which Krishna Bareth sustained serious injuries and was admitted to the hospital for treatment. In this connection, upon receiving the information from the hospital regarding admission of Krishna Bareth due to acid attack, the police station Kotwali registered a case against unknown accused persons under Sections 307/34 of the IPC, and investigation was initiated. During the course of treatment, Krishna Bareth died, and thereafter, in continuation of the investigation, Inspector Arjun Ram (PW-16) registered the final report by adding Sections 302/34 IPC. Prior to this, Sub-Inspector R. K. Kesharwani (PW-13) had registered the zero numbered FIR under Ex.P-1. A written request was made for the medical examination of injured Krishna Bareth vide Ex.P-17, and a request was also submitted to the SDM for recording the dying declaration of the injured vide Ex.p-18. The spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-19. From the scene of occurrence, in the presence of witnesses, cement-plastered wall material showing acid splashes was scraped and seized in a plastic container, along with plain soil vide seizure memo Ex.P-12. On 10.05.2011, the clothes worn by the injured at the time of the incident were seized vide Ex.P-13.

3. During the course of investigation, statements of Krishna Bareth (injured), Ramesh Jaiswal, Vijay Chauhan, Pappu alias Satish, Sitaram Sahu, R. K. Bareth, Santosh Kumar, Devatt Sahu, Smt. Shyamabai, and Sanjay Sharma were recorded as stated by them. Accused Sheetal Bareth (A-1) and Sunil Bareth (A-2) were taken into custody, and their memorandum statements were recorded vide Ex.P-07 and P-8 respectively, in which the accused disclosed that they could get the motorcycle used at the time of the incident recovered. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-11 CA-7067, used in the commission of the offence, was seized vide Ex.P-09. The accused persons were arrested vide Ex.P-10 and P-11. A written request for the medical examination of accused Sunil Kumar Bareth was made on 31.05.2011 vide Ex.P-22. Further, a memorandum was submitted to the Tehsildar for preparation of patwari map vide Ex.P-23.

4. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants under Sections 302, 201 read with section 34 of IPC, to which the accused-appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial.

5. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 302 read with section 34 and 201 read with section 34 of the IPC.

6. So as to hold the accused-appellants guilty, the prosecut