The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; mere confessions without corroboration are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shubham Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned APP.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.08.1998 passed by Shri Jaywant Tiru, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Chhotu Lohra in which it has been stated that the father of the informant, namely, Dahru Lohra @ Sitaram Lohra had gone to Village Kanakloya to bring the niece of the informant. The informant had left for his field for ploughing and after returning home at 11.30 a.m., he had his meal when Sitaram Gosai had informed him that his wife has died and therefore a request was made to the informant to inform Pandu Gosai, the son of Sitaram Gosai who works in Raja Hotel. The informant accordingly was going to Putri Toli to inform Pandu Gosai when near Karamtola besides the Banyan Tree, he had found the dead body of his father with marks of violence on his body. When the informant raised a cry of alarm several persons had assembled. The father of the informant was having a land dispute with the accused persons who used to regularly threaten his father. The informant has raised a suspicion that the accused persons have committed the murder of his father.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kolebira P.S. Case No. 46/1997 was instituted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 264 of 1997. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Initially the appellant and one Chandru Lohra had preferred by the present appeal, but since the appeal had abated as against Chandru Lohra, the same is confined to the appellant Budhu Lohra only.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen (13) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Bhinsent Bage did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 2 Basanti Kumari has been tendered by the prosecution.

P.W. 3 Sanju Kerketta did not support the case of the prosecution and was accordingly declared hostile.

P.W. 4 Mangarnath Mahto has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext. 1.

P.W. 5 Sanjay Singh,

P.W. 6 Karampal Yadav,

P.W. 7 Nowel Tete and

P.W. 8 Bijai Topno were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 9 Arun Singh has been tendered by the prosecution.

P.W. 10 Chhutu Lohar @ Chhotu Lohra is the informant who has stated that it was a Sunday and he had gone to plough his field and his father had gone to Village Kanakloya to bring his aunt Phulki Lohrain. He had returned home at 11 a.m. In the village the wife of Sitaram Gosai had died and he was going to Putri Toli to inform the son of Sitaram Gosai, when on the way he found the dead body of his father beneath a Banyan Tree. There were several marks of injury on the person of his father. His cousin brother Mangal Lohra had informed him that Budhu Lohra, Chandru Lohra, Rathu Lohra and Surendra Lohra have committed the murder of his father. There was a previous land dispute between his father and the accused persons. He has proved his signature in the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 2/6.

In cross examination he has deposed that he had mentioned to the police about the disclosure made by Mangal Lohra regarding the role of the accused persons, but he does not know as to whether the same was incorporated in the Fardbeyan or not.

P.W. 11 Mangal Lohra did not support the case of