Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient.

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12^th July, 2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Surguja (Ambikapur) in ST No.393/2011 whereby the accused/appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.5.2011 the deceased had gone to Village-Chainpur by bus in marriage ceremony of one Rupesh Uraon of her village where her maternal grant parents reside, along with other villagers including the accused/appellant. Her father (PW-1) also went to Village-Chainpur at the house of his mother- in-law (PW-2) and father-in-law (PW-3) where the deceased was also present. On being asked, the deceased told that she came with the accused. After marriage function being over, when her father went to the house of his father-in-law for taking her back to the village, she was not found there. His mother-in-law (PW-2) informed that at around 8-9 pm the deceased came with the accused and was saying that she would return with him by bus. Though her father searched her everywhere but she was not found. At around 1 am when the marriage party returned to the village, he met the accused and asked him about his daughter, on which he replied that he left her at her maternal grandmother’s house. However, next day when he went with his nephew Sushil to Village-Chainpur, the Village Kotwar informed him that one girl is lying dead in the agricultural field. He went there and saw that it is his daughter and thereafter informed the police about the same.

03. During investigation, the police registered Merg No.53/2011 on 28.5.2011 (Ex.P/1), prepared spot map Ex.P/6, inquest memo Ex.P/5, seized plastic slippers and one underwear from the spot and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem to Community Health Center, Sitapur where Dr. Vidyabhushan Toppo (PW-8) conducted her postmortem and gave report of Ex.P/10. The wearing apparels of the accused were also seized on being produced by his father. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After obtaining due permission, DNA test of the accused was also done. After completion of usual investigation charge sheet under Sections 363, 376(2)(f) and 302 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellant. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) and 302 of IPC against him, to which he abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. 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. However, no witness was examined by him in his defence.

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 appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence but there is no complete chain of circumstances which points towards guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. As per evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the appellant and the deceased left the house of PW-2 separately and after that no one saw them together. PW-13 CS Netam, IO, states that there were two merg intimation i.e. Merg No.51/2011 and Merg No.53/2011 and the appellant has been prosecuted in relation to Merg No.51/