IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence was overturned due to the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances and the unreliability of the confession.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arun Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Saket Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2017, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi in Session Trial No.156 of 2013 whereby the sole accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant will have to undergo S.I. for a period of one year.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Inspite of the fact that chain of circumstances was not complete, the appellant has been convicted. The prosecution has come up with the case that this appellant was having illicit relationship with the deceased and as the same was detected by the husband of the appellant, this appellant has committed murder of the deceased. This proposition is absolutely absurd because when this appellant and the deceased were having some affair, there was no ground for this appellant to commit murder of the deceased. He submits that though the husband of this appellant was put on trial but he was acquitted, considering the evidence which suggest that the husband of this appellant was on duty and was not present the place of occurrence, when the murder has taken place. As per him on the basis of confessional statement of this appellant, this appellant has been convicted. The recovery of weapon on the basis of the confessional statement is not admissible on the facts of this case. Further, the murder weapon, which was produced before the Court by the prosecution was not sealed, rather it was produced in a bag, thus, there is high probability that the said murder weapon could have been replaced or tampered with. The alleged confession of this appellant before the police was not voluntary. He argues that when the Trial Court has already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against this appellant under Sections 201/34 and 120-B of IPC, and the Court was of the opinion that the part of the allegation of concealing the evidence, has not been established against this appellant, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 of IPC. He lastly submits that it is the case of the prosecution that the murder was committed in the house of this appellant and thereafter the body was dragged and kept beside the house of the informant. To do this the body had to be carried a distance through the road. The Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, thus it was for the prosecution to prove as to who dragged the body and how. Failure of the prosecution to prove the aforesaid fact will weaken the case of prosecution and will make the story doubtful, leading to acquittal.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that P.W.-8, who is the I.O. have stated that when he went inside the house of this appellant she was found crying and she disclosed that she has committed murder of the deceased and had thrown the belongings in the well. He further submits that on the disclosure of this appellant incriminating articles like bag, water bottle, shoes of the appellant were recovered from the well in front of the house of the accused, which belongs to the deceased. He further submits that P.W.-8 saw blood stains and sign of dragging of body, which would clearly suggest that the appellant has committed the murder.

5. The prosecution case is based on the FIR against unknown, lodged by one Ram Chandra Paswan. He states that he works in Railways and resides in the Railway colony at Bokaro. On 15.10.2012, in morning at about 06.00 A.M., he heard sound of commotion outside the house. On hearing sound, he came out and saw a dead body l