The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. Since both these appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction and order on sentence, therefore, both the appeals are decided together.

2. The appeal bearing Crl.A. No.1096/2015 has been filed by the appellant-Sanjay Saha @ Sanju, whereas Crl.A. No.1309/2015 has been filed by the appellant-Jallandhar Kumar @ Nakta against the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2015 vide which, both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC, and vide order on sentence dated 27.08.2015, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. The factual matrix emerging from the record is that on 04.06.2012 at about 8.55 a.m., an information was received by the police vide DD No.16A Ex. 9/B that one man was lying unconscious at house no.1112, Badiyal Mohalla, behind Shiv Mandir, Palam Village. ASI Jagdish Rathi along with Ct.Rajesh reached the spot. Insp. Mahender Singh also reached there and found the dead body of a man on the floor of a tenanted room. There were injury marks on the mouth, left eye, head, and blood was oozing out from the nose of the deceased. One shirt button was also lying near the dead body. During inquiry, it was revealed that the dead body was of Dilip Swain and he was working as a helper to plumbers. Crime team was called at the spot. No eye witness was found at the spot. The dead body was sent to the hospital and FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan and seized one white button of shirt, blood in gauze and blood stained pieces of floor. IO recorded the statement of Sh.Samandar Singh, landlord of the room of accused Jallandhar, where the deceased was found dead. Statement of one Parshant Nayak, relative of the deceased was recorded in which he stated that, both the accused had a quarrel with the deceased over theft of Rs.300/- and he had seen the deceased last time on 03.06.2012 at about 9 p.m. in the room of the accused Jallandhar and both accused were having liquor. Postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted and as per the report Ex.PW8/A, cause of death was due to “cranio cerebral injuries (head injury) caused by hard, forceful impact and the manner of death was homicidal.” Both the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW5/A and 5/B and they allegedly admitted the commission of murder of the deceased as the deceased was not returning their money. Shirt of the accused Jallandhar was seized Ex. PW-5/G. As per FSL report Ex. PW-10/A, the button recovered from the spot was of the shirt of the accused Jallandhar. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.

4. Charge for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 21 witnesses, including PW1-Parshant Nayak, PW2-Partap Chandra Swain, PW3-Sanjay Swain (relatives of the deceased) and PW4-Samandar Singh, landlord of the accused Jallandhar.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they claimed innocence and denied the entire case of the prosecution. Despite opportunity being granted, the appellants did not choose to lead defense evidence.

7. On appreciation of evidence and material brought on record, the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 19.08.2015 and order on sentence passed on 27.08.2015. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant- Sanjay Saha has argued that the testimony of PW1 is unworthy of credence and cannot be acted upon to hold the appellant guilty. PW1 deposed that he made a call to the police and reported the occurrence, but