Conviction under circumstantial evidence requires proof of an unbroken link of evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely suspicion.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted with learned counsel for the informant in both the appeals.

2. The instant criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence under section 302 and 201 of IPC dated 30.10.2002/31.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC-V, Deoghar in S.C. Case No.214 of 1996 and arising out of G.R. No.254 of 1995 (T.R. No.599 of 1996), whereby and whereunder the appellants were sentenced to undergone R.I. for life for the offence under section 302 of IPC and R.I. for three years for the offence under section 201 of IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 01.06.1995 in the noon, the appellant No.1 Govind Das came to the house of the informant Jhula Devi (P.W.2) and asked her daughter-in- law to send her husband (since deceased) to him but on that day the informant’s son did not go to the house of Govind Das. On the next day i.e. on 02.06.1995 in the morning at about 12:00-1:00 PM, the wife of Gogla Manjhi namely Tarwa Devi came to the house of the informant and told that a clerk of school namely Dasrath Manjhi had come to her house and he is calling Basudeo Das for talking with him. Upon this, Basudeo Das followed with wife of Gogla Manjhi and went to her home but did not return till 5 PM. It is further alleged that when the informant went to the house of Gogla Manjhi then she saw that Basudeo Das accompanying with son of the informant then she asked Dasrath Manjhi as to where he is going along with her son in night, then he disclosed that her son Basudeo Das will stay in his house in the night and in the morning, he will go to the home of his maternal uncle Govind Das. It is further alleged that in the morning, the informant went to factory, where her son was also working, but came to know that he did not join the duty in the night. Thereafter, she went in search of her son Basudeo Das near Madhupur Market also where she came to know that towards east of Lerwa Harijan School, Dangal, a dead body of a boy is lying resembling with the son of the informant. Then, she went there and saw he dead bod of her son. The police had also arrived there. The informant raised suspicion against Dasrath Manjhi, Govind Das, Tarwa Devi and others might have killed her son and disposed of the dead body in Dangal.

4. On the basis of Fardbayan of the informant, FIR was registered for the offence under section 302 of IPC against the unknown miscreants. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named appellants for the offences under sections 302/201 of IPC. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C. Case No.214 of 1996 was registered.

The accused persons/appellants denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, all the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced for the offences under sections 302/201 of IPC.

5. It appears that Cr. Appeal(D.B.) No.787 of 2002 was filed by all the appellants. Thereafter Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.04 of 2003 was separately filed by the appellant Tarwa Devi in which, vide order dated 07.01.2003, she was granted bail during pendency of this appeal. Since Tarwa Devi had already filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal(D.B.) No.787 of 2002, hence vi