In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2019 passed by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge Surajpur, District- Surajpur in Sessions Trial No. 39/2018 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months each.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Indramani Yadav is the wife of accused Basant Yadav. On the night of 11.02.2018, the deceased Indramani Yadav slept alone in her shop after closing the shutter. Next day in the morning, when the deceased's son-daughter-in-law Geeta Yadav went to give her tea, she saw that the shutter of the shop was open. When she went inside the shop, she found the deceased Indramani dead on the cot. Information regarding the incident was registered at the police station. The matter was taken into investigation. During the investigation, the husband of the deceased husband i.e. Accused- Basant Yadav was caught and when he was questioned, accused Basant Yadav admitted to killing his wife Indramani by strangling her with his scarf ¼xeNk½ in connivance with other accused. Memorandum statement of accused Basant Yadav was recorded. The scarf of accused Basant Yadav was seized in front of the witnesses. During investigation, the accused were arrested. Post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got done. Spot map of incident was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur committed the case to Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Surajpur as it was within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Surajpur for hearing. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the trial Court by Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Surajpur for proper disposal. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302/34 of IPC, to which appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence.

4. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.03.2019 finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as the chain of circumstance is incomplete in this case. The case of the prosecution is full of doubts and suspicions and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Appellants have been charged on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused and there is no incriminating material against the present appellants. The learned trial Court has erred in the findings for not appreciating the unconnected circumstantial evidence as the motive in the instant crime is altogether missing. The evidence available on record does not constitute the offence against the appellants, so the story of prosecution agency cannot be relied and the conviction