Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence without clear link to the appellant is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2017 and order of sentence dated 01.09.2017 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.74 of 2014, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no mentioning about the appellant in the entire F.I.R. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no eye-witness to the incident and there are material contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that there is nothing on record to connect this appellant with the alleged incident. On these grounds, he implored this Court to acquit this appellant and allow this Criminal Appeal.

4. Per contra, learned P.P. representing the State opposes this Criminal Appeal and submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case by adducing the witnesses before the Court and all the material and witnesses have supported the facts which were first recorded in the fardbeyan of the informant. He submits that the place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution i.e. Kolambda forest. He further stated that the prosecution has brought on record all the connected material exhibits and got it proved by the relevant witnesses.

5. Facts of the case as delineated in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the informant namely Kamla Devi, Chowkidarin 6/2, are that during patrolling, she got information that a dead body of 35 years’ unknown lady is lying in the Kolambda forest. When the informant reached Kolambda forest, she found the dead body who appeared to have been murdered a day before. The informant found cut injuries on cheek, neck and head which appeared to have been caused by sharp edged weapon. The deceased was wearing a yellow coloured saree and blouse along with an ornament of roll gold in her ear, nose and neck. The deceased was 5’ 3” long and her complexion was dark. The upper teeth of the deceased were protruding outwards. None of the villagers were able to recognize the deceased. In the meantime, police came there and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant.

6. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Murhu P.S. Case No.47/2014 was lodged and investigation was conducted. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet against the appellant – Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Kumar Sao, was submitted under Section 302 /201 of IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session.

7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined, deposition of whom are hereunder:-

8. P.W.-1 namely Bheem Swansi, deposed that a dead body of a ladywas recovered from the Kolambda jungle. He saw the dead body and saw the injury on her head:

In cross-examination, he deposed that he was not enquired by the police