JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the Fard Beyan by one Banshi Mehta, the informant, read as under:

It is alleged that on 17.04.14 after casting his vote, he came back to his house along with Devtati @ Devanand Tati (deceased) at 14:00 hrs. At about 11:00 p.m., Dulla Rama came and informed that Devtat Munshi was murdered by knife. On this he went to the owner Mundrika Mehta and informed about the incident. They went to see and saw wound on chest and cheek of left side was cut and blood was oozing and found dead. On that place Vijay Indwar @ Wangra was seen moving around on suspicion condition. When people started gathering, on seeing this Vijay Indwar tried to flee away but he didn’t succeed. The information was given to Padma O.P. Quarrel used to happen between Vijay Indwar and Devtat Tati. It was told by Devtat Tati to informant that Vijay Indwar has suspicion that there is illicit relation with him (deceased) and Vijay Indwar can murder him anytime.

On the basis of fard-bayan of informant Barhi (Padma) P.S Case No. 115/14 registered u/s 302 of the IPC: against accused Vijay Indwar. After investigation charge-sheet: No. 66/14 dated 30.06.2014 was submitted against accused Vijay Indwar. Cognizance of the offence has been taken on 16.07.2014 and the case is committed to the court of sessions on 24.07.2014 for trial. Accordingly, charge framed under Section 302 of the IPC against accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and in view thereof, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds for interfering with the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment:

(i) It is evident from the perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that it is not the case of the eye witnesses rather it is the case based upon the circumstantial evidence, as such, the law is well settled that in the case of circumstantial evidence, more care and circumspection is to be taken by the learned trial court in passing the judgment of conviction;

(ii) It has been contended that the parameter for proving the charge in the case of circumstantial evidence is that the chain is to be completed.

5. Herein, although none of the witnesses has seen the commission of crime, however, the conviction is based upon the report of the FSL wherein, the sample have been taken marked as Ext.-A, B and C of the blood stained earth, blood stained sabal and blood stained gamchha cuttings respectively. The FSL report reflects that so far as the Ext.-A is concerned, the blood is found to be of human having Group-B; Ext.-B is also having human blood of Group-B and the Ext.-C is also found to be of human being but there is no description of blood group. For ready reference, the result of serological examination is being referred as under:

Sl. No. Exhibit(s)

Marked Nature of Stains/tissue Origin Grouping Remarks

Species of origin Results ABO Grouping Results Others (Particularly when origin/Grouping not determined)

1. A Blood HUMAN Group-B -

2. B Blood HUMAN Group-B -

3. C Blood HUMAN Could not be determined - Result of test for blood grouping inconclusive

6.