JUDGMENT :

M.A. Ali, J.

Heard Mr. B.B. Narzary, learned counsel assisted Mr. S. Chauhan for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 117/2016, Mr. R. M. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in Crl. A.(J) No. 68/2015 & Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 178/2016. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1, Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant in Crl. A.(J) No. 68/2015 and Ms. Meghali Barman, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2/informant in both Crl. Appeal Nos. Nos. 117/2016 and 178/2016.

2. All these three appeals arose out of the judgment and order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang, in Sessions Case No. 128(D)/2015. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 IPC. The appellants/accused were also sentenced to fine of Rs. 3,000/- each & Rs.1,000/- each u/s 302 and 201 IPC respectively with default stipulation.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 06.11.2011, eight accused persons named in the FIR forcibly took away the mother and father of the informant, namely, Smt. Bulao Narzary and Raman Narzary respectively. Later on, they were killed by the said accused persons and buried the bodies in the cremation ground. An FIR was lodged by PW-1, Amar Narzary, on the basis of which, police registered Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 141/2011 under Sections 143/302/201 IPC and commenced investigation. In course of investigation, the police recovered the bodies of the victims, prepared the inquest report, conducted postmortem examination, recorded the statement of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the eight accused persons, including the present appellants. Out of the eight accused persons named in the charge sheet, one Gauri Boro was declared absconder, as his attendance could not be procured and eventually the present appellants stood trial.

4. In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants under Section 302/201 IPC, to which, all the appellants pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellants under Section 302/201 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. Aggrieved by conviction and sentence, the accused/appellants, have preferred the instant appeal.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the appellants as well as the respondents.

7. Apparently there was no direct evidence, as no one has seen the accused persons committing murder of the victims. The learned Sessions Judge, primarily relying on the circumstantial evidence, convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants contended, that the circumstances relied by the learned Sessions Judge were not proved beyond doubt, and as such the conviction and sentences of the appellants are not sustainable.

8. The law with regard to the nature and standard of circumstantial evidence required for proving the guilt of the accused in a criminal trial is by now well settled. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P., (1952) AIR SC 343, the Apex Court observed as under:

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable g