Conviction based solely on suspicion is insufficient; legal proof is required to establish guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. Above named sole appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2014/29.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Seraikella in Sessions Trail No. 47/2006 for the offences under Section 302 and 201/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 302 and further R.I. of 4 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C with default stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.01.2006, informant Anil Hembram along with father Upal Hembram had gone to see cock fight at village Podogora. In the evening, at about 06:00 PM, informant left the place saying his father that he is returning by his bicycle and he has to come on foot. It is further alleged that the informant’s father did not return in the night then, in the next day morning, he started searching his father and enquired with several villagers and relatives, but no clue was found. It is further alleged that on 18.01.2006, in the morning informant’s brother Chetan Hebram went to village Bhusandi where one Dursu Hebram told that his father might have been killed by Shikhar Hansda and Chetan Hansda and his dead body may be found in the pond at village Bhusandih. The informant along with other villagers met with Brindaban Manjhi, Dursu Hembram, Logan Hembram and Pakhan Tudu etc. who disclosed that his father was returning with Sikhar Hansda in the night of Sunday from village Podogora. Thereafter, they have not seen him. Chandan Hansda (present appellant) was also seen with them. They also disclosed that in the night at about 10:00 PM, they have also heard and seen Sikhar Hansda was doing something in the village pond calling bhoot, but the villagers ignored them due to night and also in view of fact that both were extremely under drunken state. It is further alleged that due to suspicion, the informant and villagers started searching his father in the pond and found a dead body tied with a log which was brought out and village chowkidar was also informed. Police arrived in the morning of 19.01.2006 and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by S.I. Dhannajay Singh, Officer-In-Charge, Nimdih Police Station at about 09:00 AM. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was registered at Nimdih P.S. Case No. 6/2006 dated 19.01.2006 for the offences under Section 302/201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Charge of investigation was also assumed by S.I. Dhananjay Singh (P.W.13) who after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and his brother Shikhar Hansda for the offences under Section 302/201 of I.P.C.

4. Accordingly, the case was commuted to the Court of Sessions and the charges were read-over and explained to the accused persons, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, the other co-accused person namely Sikhar Hansda died, hence proceeding against him was dropped and the present appellant has faced the trial.

6. In the course of trial, prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidences.

(i) Exhibit 1: - Signature of informant on Fardbeyan.

(ii) Exhibit 1/1 and 1/2: - Signature of witnesses, Motilal Hembram and Mohan Hembram respectively, over inquest report of the deceased.

(iii) Exhibit 2 and 2/1:- Fardbeyan and endorsement on Fardbeyan for registration of case, respectively.

(iv) Exhibit 3: - Formal F.I.R.

(v) Exhibit 4: - Inquest Report and,

(vi) Exhibit 5: - Post-mortem report of the deceased.

7. On the other hand, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused has pleaded innocence and false implication in the case only on the basis of suspicion. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

8. L