The establishment of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt can support a conviction for homicide and destruction of evidence under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/03/2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 19/2019, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

1. (A) Facts of the case, in brief, is that on on 07.02.2019, the complainant Sushil Chand Sharma (PW-3) lodged a report at Pandaria police station that the body of an unknown woman was lying in a half-burnt state in two pieces near his house in village Rehmankampa, on the basis of which, merg and FIR were registered vide Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-53 respectively. Crime details was prepared vide Ex.P-6. Spot maps were prepared vide Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-31. During investigation, the dead body of Jamotri Bai (deceased) was identified. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P- 55 and statement of appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-14. It is alleged that on 04/02/2019, the appellant murdered the deceased in his rented house at Pandariya, and after cutting the body into several pieces, he tried to burn both the torsos by throwing them beside the complainant’s house and also tried to burn the head, both hands and both legs of the deceased by burying them in a heap of coal.

(B) On the basis of memorandum Ex.P-14, the appellant, who is married, was in love affair with the deceased since 2017. On 04/02/2019, the deceased came to meet with the appellant, to which, the appellant refused to meet her and told her that his wife is in ill condition and admitted in hospital. When the appellant reached his house alone, the deceased came there too, forced him to meet and started threatening him that she will lodge report against him, due to which, a quarrel took place between them. After that, the appellant murdered the deceased by throttling her in his house. On the next day i.e. 05/02/2019, he chopped the body of deceased in various parts and thrown near under construction house of complainant PW-3.

2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 41 witnesses and exhibited 80 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication.

3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire case of prosecution is based upon the statement of the interested witnesses and the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant beyond all the reasonable doubts. He further submits that there is no proof of the last seen theory and only the basis of presumption, a false story has been created against the appellant. He further submits that there is no eye witness in the present case and hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on surmises and conjectures. He would further submit that the memorandum and seizure witnesses hav