A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. The appellants abovenamed were put on trial for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC, before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 39(DH)/07. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.08 convicted the accused/appellants under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and under Section 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo RI for 2 months for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and further sentenced the accused/appellants to undergo RI for 2 years for commission of offence under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case centres around the homicidal death of Nabajyoti Bora, driver of vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-12-D-1777.

2. PW.1, N. Dutta, an employee of Joyrampur Soil Conservation Centre lodged an 'Ejahar' before the Bordoloni Police Out Post on 23.1.07, stating therein that at about 2:00 PM on 23.1.07, while he along with his associates Sri Mineswar Sonwal (PW.7) and Ratneswar were on duty, they noticed a dead body lying in the forest area. They also noticed injury marks on various parts of the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly suspecting it to be a case of homicide, PW.1 informed the police by filing FIR (Exht.1). On receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of the Bordoloni Outpost made a G.D entry and forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge of Gogamukh Police Station, for registration of a case. Accordingly, a case was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of Gogamukh Police Station and investigation was launched. In the course of investigation, the dead body was identified to be one of Nabajyoti Bora, the driver of vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-12-D-1777, belonging to Bogeswar Kalita (PW.4).

3. During investigation, the aforesaid vehicle was recovered at Along, Arunachal Pradesh in the possession of the accused/appellants by the Officer-in-Charge, Along police. Having received the information of recovery of the vehicle in question, the Investigating Officer visited the Along Police Station and accordingly, seized the vehicle and also brought the accused persons, on arrest. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination after preparing the inquest. The Investigating Officer, on conclusion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section 379/302/34 IPC.

4. During the course of trial, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed against the accused/appellants under Section 379/302/34 IPC. On reading over and explaining the charges, aforenoted all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer, during trial. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, one witness, namely, Tarun Kr. Saikia, Inspector of Along Police Station was examined as Court Witness No. 1.

6. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC. The accused persons took the plea of total denial in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC and declined to adduce any evidence in their defence.

7. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused appellants as aforesaid, giving rise to this appeal.

8. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the appellants and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned PP for the State respondent.

9. Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence to convict the appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsels further submitted that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. But in the instant case, even