In cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and unbroken. Conviction cannot rest on inadmissible police statements or unverified recoveries. Failure to establish motive, conduct forensic analysis of recovered items, or prove the authorship of concealment renders the prosecution's case unsustainable.

ORDER :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the 2 appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2022 and Crl.A. 52/2025 and Mr. D.K. Bagchi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 117/2022. We have also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. The three appellants herein have been convicted vide judgment dated 25/10/2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions Case No. 152/2009, under section 302 and 201 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for 3 months under section 302 IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for 3 months under section 201 IPC.

3. The counsels for the appellants submit that there is no evidence to link the appellants with the death of the deceased. Further, despite the Learned Trial Court having come to a finding that the discovery of the alleged weapon used for killing the deceased had been made on the oral disclosure statement made by appellant Bholla Sankar Singh, there was no disclosure statement made by the said Bholla Sankar Singh. Further, the weapon had not been sent for FSL examination. They also submit that the seizure of the blood stained clothes of the appellants do not in any manner prove that the appellants had killed the deceased, in the absence of proof that the blood on the seized clothes was human blood or that it was the blood of the deceased. The Learned counsels for the appellants submit that the appellants have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, pursuant to the conjectures and speculation made by the Learned Trial Court, without there being any evidence to show that the appellants had been with the deceased immediately prior to his death. They accordingly submit that the impugned judgment should be set aside.

4. The learned APP, on the other hand, submits that the evidence adduced during trial shows that there was discovery of the knife and dao used in the killing of the deceased, on the basis of the oral disclosure statements made by the appellants Bholla Shankar Singh and Dibyakanti Paul @Tuton. She submits that when the disclosure statements made by the two appellants had resulted in the recovery of one dagger and one dao, which were the weapons used for killing the deceased, there was no infirmity in the conviction of the appellants by the learned Trial Court. The learned APP also submits that the medical evidence showing the injuries on the deceased, proved that the seized dagger and dao were the weapons which had been used for killing the deceased. She also submits that the statement of the appellant Shri Sanjib Sahu, which had been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, had been exhibited during trial as Ext. 14 and the same proved that the appellant Sanjib Sahu was also guilty of having taken part in the killing of the deceased. The learned APP also submits that the statement of the appellant Bholla Sankar Singh @ Bala Singha recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. and which had been exhibited at Ext.17 has clearly proved that he had killed the deceased with the dagger. Further, the statement made to the police by the appellant Dibyakanti Paul @ Tuton under section 161 Cr.P.C, which had b