IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction under IPC sections 302 and 201.

JUDGMENT :

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for the State at length.

2. These appeals arises out of judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2015 in S.T. Case No. 29 of 2012/S.T. Case No. 34 of 2012 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga convicted the appellant, namely, Jitram Oraon under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 302 IPC, however no sentence under section 201 IPC was inflicted upon him. Further appellants, namely, Birsa Oraon @ Birsu Oraon, Dinesh Oraon, Pancham Oraon were convicted only under section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years under section 201 of IPC.

3. The appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 624 of 2015 is the husband of the deceased whereas the other appellants in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 561 of 2020 are other in-laws.

4. The prosecution case arises from the fardbeyan of PW4 who is the mother of the deceased. She stated that her daughter was married with the appellant Jitram Oraon sometime in May 2005 and she was residing at her matrimonial home and was blessed with a daughter of three years. She alleges that after three years the husband use to assault her alleging that she had developed some adulterous relationship. The deceased use to inform the informant about the aforesaid assaults and her mother try to pacify. On 26.04.2011 the brother of the appellant, namely, Dinesh Oraon informed the informant that her daughter had died as she was drowned in the well and they had performed all the last rites. When the informant and others reached the place of occurrence i.e. the matrimonial house of the deceased, the accused persons could not give any satisfactory reply thus she concluded that, to conceal the evidence they had performed the last rites of the deceased. On the aforesaid background Kisko PS Case No. 50 of 2011 under section 498A, 302, 201/34 IPC was instituted. The police investigated the case and filed chargesheet. As the appellants pleaded not guilty they were put on trial.

5. Altogether six witnesses were examined in this case who are PW1-Goberdhan Oraon, PW2-Sunil Oraon, PW3-Soma Oraon, PW4-Siriya Oraon @ Balmuni Oraon, PW5-Munu Tudu and PW6-Indranath Oraon and the documents were exhibited. After closure of the evidence the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.PC in which they tried to explain the situations and the circumstances which surfaced in the instance case. They replied but this appellant Jitram Oraon has admitted that they cremated the dead body of the deceased without informing his in-laws.

6. The trial Court thereafter convicted Jitram Oraon who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 624 of 2015 for committing offence under section 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for life under section 302 IPC whereas the other appellants who are in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 561 of 2020 are convicted under section 201 IPC and sentenced to SI for 3 years.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death is homicidal. When there is no evidence that the death is homicidal, the appellant cannot be convicted under section 302 of IPC. He submits that the only guilt of the appellant, namely, Jitram Oraon is that without informing the informant and her family members, dead body was cremated. This act of the appellant does not come within the purview of any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code nor can it lead to any presumption that he had committed murder. It is his contention that none of the persons from the matrimonial home of the deceased was produced as a witness. Though the witness PW4 stated that this appellant had subjected the deceased to torture and the deceased was assaulted by this appellant for non-fulfillment of demand of money but the I.O has categorically stated that he has not found any wit