The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on complete chain of circumstances and reliable evidence. The judgment also emphasizes the necessity to prove the ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The Criminal Appeals are arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 16.6.2005 in B.S.R. Sessions Case No. 2/02 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the conviction under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The reference has been made for confirmation of the sentence in view of the provision contained in Regulation 30(1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945.

2. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Dungsing Bimpak, PW5, on 10.12.1999 alleging that his father has been murdered at Bimpak village by Binda Bimpak, the accused/appellant, by the gun at about 4.00 PM, with the Officer-in-Charge of Taliha Police Station, Taliha P.S. Case No. 10/99 under Section 302, IPC read with Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 was registered. The investigating agency after completion of the investigation submitted the chargesheet against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.7.2000 committed the accused-appellant to the Court of Sessions and accordingly the charges under the said provisions of law were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basar on 19.12.2002 against the accused/appellant which when read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused/appellant examined 8 witnesses including the first informant, investigating officer as well as the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. After closure of the prosecution witnesses statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused did not examine any defence.

4. There was no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case was based on the circumstantial evidence as well as the evidence leading to the discovery of the skeleton alleged to be that of the deceased person. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the judgment of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence as well as the evidence leading to the discovery of the skeleton and convicted the accused persons under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as stated above.

5. We have heard Mr. A.K. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 189/05(GHY) and the learned amicus curiae in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 92/05 and Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh on behalf of the State respondents in both the appeals as well as of the reference.

5. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel referring to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses including the Doctor's evidence, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body, has submitted that admittedly there is no witness to the occurrence alleged and the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence as well the alleged evidence leading to the discovery of the skeleton. According to the learned Counsel the chain of circumstances in the present case is not complete and accused in fact did not lead the police party to discovery of any fact so as to record conviction. It has therefore been submitted that the prosecution in fact could not even establish that the skeleton allegedly recovered was the skeleton of the victim and, therefore, in fact the death of the alleged victim was not proved by the prosecution. Referring to the post mortem examinat