Circumstantial evidence must provide a complete and unbroken chain conclusively establishing the accused's guilt; gaps in evidence require acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Dev Choudhury, J.)

1. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The challenge:

The present criminal appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 07.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District in Session Case No. 03/2022, wherein and whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 /201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- for committing offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 5 (five) years for committing offence under Section 201 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of five months.

3. The background:

I. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an FIR lodged by Officer in Charge of Bhalukpong Police Station, District- West Kameg, Arunachal Pradesh to the effect that on 18.10.2021, at 04:00PM, he has received a telephonic information regarding recovery of a female dead body lyingin the backside of Bhalukpong General Ground Pavilion in a semi naked condition with bushes lying on her back, however, no document inside her bag as regards her identity was found. Accordingly, Bhalukpong Police Station Case No. BPG/PS-C No. 13/2021 under Section 302 IPC was registered.

II. During the course of the investigation, the accused was arrested on suspicion and having telephonic conversation with the victim the previous night i.e. on 17.10.2021. Inquest and post-mortem upon the dead body were conducted. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO), had submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 /201 of IPC.

III. Since the case was Sessions triable,it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 /201 of IPC by the learned trial Court, and the same was read over and explained to the accused person. Since the accused denied the charges brought against him and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.

IV. As there is no eyewitness to the offence, the prosecution’s case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 29 (twenty- nine) witnesses, including the I.O., who conducted the investigation as PW-27, the Doctor who conducted the Post-Mortem upon the dead body as PW-19. The Court also examined PW-4 Santosh Chetry as CW-1.

V. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating materials put to him. The accused adduced his evidence as DW-1.

VI. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused person/appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 /201 of the IPC and sentenced him, in the manner described hereinabove.

4. Argument on behalf of the appellant:

I. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the appellant argues that admittedly there is no direct evidence against the appellant and the whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence however, there is no iota of evidence to arrive at the conclusion of guilt, not to say that the evidences and the circumstances projected by the prosecution even do not raise any suspicion or hypothesis of guilt of the accused. According to Mr. Panging, in the case