Insufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

1. No one appears on behalf of the appellant in spite of repeated calls. The record shows that on 12.8.2010 when the matter taken up, no one had appeared for the appellant and the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, the matter could be taken up today and today also, no one appeared for the appellant. Learned counsel for the State is present. As such we have gone through the record with the help of learned counsel for the State. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 22.1.1993 and order of sentence dated 5.2.1993 passed by learned 5th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in ST. No. 339 of 1989, whereby, the accused appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence, however, was passed for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of one Raiya Oraon, the son of the deceased Gobra Oraon, recorded on 26.9.1988 stating therein that two days earlier, his father had gone for a walk in the evening in the village. When his father did not return back till late night, they started searching him. In the morning, he found one slipper of his father near the house of the accused Manga Oraon and he also found some blood there. He also found the mark of dragging and thereafter, the dead body of his father was found in the river. The Chowkidar was informed. The informant has stated that there was enmity between the appellant Manga Oraon and his father Gobra Oraon and there was a criminal case, in which, his father was acquitted. He has suspected that this accused had committed the murder of his father. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Lapung P.S. Case No. 25 of 1988 corresponding to G.R. No. 2976 of 1988 was instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

3. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the sole accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial.

4. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses (actually eight, as after PW-6, the next witness is numbered as PW-8), including the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined.

5. P.W. 1-Raiya Oraon is the informant of the case and the son of the deceased. This witnesses has stated that the occurrence had taken place about one and half years ago on a Saturday, at about 4 P.M. in the evening, and his father was in the house. It was a day of Karma festival. Manga Oraon and Karlus Khakha came to his house and called his father for taking haria (local rice wine). His father went along with them, but he did not return back in the night and on the next day, he found the slipper of his father near the house of Manga Oraon and blood was also found. There were marks of dragging of the dead body and the dead body of his father was found in the river. He has stated that he informed the Chowkidar and he also informed the police, whereupon, his fardbeyan was recorded by the police, on which he had put his thumb impression. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember the date of occurrence, but the dead body of his father was found in the river on Sunday. He had seen the slipper of his father near the house of the accused at a distance of about 20 feet and there was blood also there. He has also stated that when the accused along with another person came to call his father, by that time,