IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must conclusively establish the guilt of the accused, and extra-judicial confessions must be voluntary and reliable to be admissible.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Appellants Maheshwar Kumhar and Swamber Behra have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.1995 and order of sentence dated 12.05.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 503 of 1990, whereby he has convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Penal Code’ for brevity) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 of the Penal Code.

2. Originally, 07 persons were charge-sheeted and faced trial, but only these two appellants have been convicted and rest five persons have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge because of paucity of evidence.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that informant Parai Gope (PW-2) got his fardbeyan recorded on 13.05.1990 stating that on last Wednesday (09.05.1990) his co-villager Swamber Behra came to his house at 11/12 hours and took his son Vimal @ Bhikhu Gope saying for taking some photographs. They took the Hero Cycle along with them. On Friday his sister-in-law Jema Gopin (PW-8) came to him and told that last Wednesday at about 1-2 hours both the boys Vimal and Swamber came to her house and Vimal Gope told her that his parents are talking about negotiating some land and asked her to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- and he had also brought Swamber for her assurance. She had given that amount to Vimal. After about half an hour, both the boys left on the same cycle. On Saturday (12.05.1990) while the informant was returning home from Amda Bazar at about 4.30 p.m., and while he was crossing the river near his house, he saw one ‘Ganji’ lying on the road. He grew suspicious and found that it was the ‘Ganji’ of his son Vimal Gope. The Ganji was stained with blood. He also found dragging mark on the sand. He followed the dragging mark and at some distance found the dead body of his son lying near a Nala. The dead body had decomposed. Flesh from face, both arms and waist were consumed by wild animals. The informant identified the black colour Full Pant of his son. The informant returned home and disclosed this fact to his co-villagers and sent information to Manki of Dhansari. The informant came to learn that accused Swamber Behra had not returned home from that very day (09.05.1990). The informant further stated that though the informant or his son Vimal Gope @ Bhikhu had no enmity with the accused Swamber Behra but still he suspected that his son Vimal Gope and accused Swamber Behra might have quarreled over taking Hariya (liquor) and accused Swamber committed murder of his son Vimal and concealed the dead body in the Nala and fled away with the cycle.

4. S.I. Indrapal Oraon (PW-9) arrived at the village and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was drawn up against accused Swamber Behra. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against 07 accused persons under Sections 364, 302, 201, 379, 120-B of the Penal Code, on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. Defence denied the allegations and appellant Swamber Behra denied to have made any confessional statement before anybody.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses in total.

PW-1 Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and PW-9 Indrapal Oraon is the Investigating Officer of this case. PW-2 Parai Gope happens to be the father of the deceased and informant of this case. PW-3 Pratap Pingua, PW-4 Lakhan Gope, PW-5 Rukmani Gope, PW-6 Govind Pingua, PW-7 Shaymsunder Gope and PW-8 Jema are the different witnesses who have stated regarding the circumstances appearing in this case against the appellants.

7. Basing on the evidences of these witnesses, th