Conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated statements or circumstantial evidence; it must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 22^nd April, 1998 and order of sentence dated 24^th April, 1998, passed by learned 1^st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.33 of 1997/19 of 1997, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 201 . Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case:

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.

3. The case has been lodged by P.W. 2, Champa Devi [informant] the wife of the deceased. She reported on 04- 05-1996 that on 03-05-1996, her she-goat was missing. She made search, but could not find out. In the evening the deceased who was her husband came after labour. She informed him that the she-goat was missing. Then her husband went to search out the said she-goat. When he returned at 8:00 PM in the night, he stated that Jhupara @ Gopal Ram, Mahabir Ram and Shakar Ram killed the she-goat. After taking meal her husband went to the house of Jhupara @ Gopal Ram by saying that he would ask Jhupara as to why he killed his she-goat so he should give money.

4. The informant has further stated that her husband did not return in the night. There was Kirtan [Prayer] going on and also marriage being performed in the night in her village. She thought that her husband might have gone to attend those ceremonies. On the following morning, when her son, namely, Guli Yadav went to search, he saw that the dead body of her husband was thrown in the north of new house of Jhupara. She went there and she also found the dead body with several injuries.

5. The informant has further stated that at that time, on the alarm Deepnarayan Choudhary of village Jamni and others assembled there. She informed them about the previous incident. At this the leader called on Jhupara near a tree and asked why he did show. At this Jhupara kept mum did not stated anything and showed his evasion to say anything. Then the leader asked to report to the police. Then Jhupara and his sons fled from their house. On the background of above facts, an F.I.R. was instituted.

6. The police, after investigation, submitted Charge-sheet against the accused persons. Accordingly, the learned court framed charge against the accused persons.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the case has adduced evidence, both documentary and oral whereas the defence case is the total denial of the involvement of the accused persons in the case.

8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused persons and found the charges levelled against the appellant-Nandlal Yadav proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been found guilty and convicted, as stated above, which is the subject matter of instant appeal. However, the other charge-sheeted accused persons, namely, Jhupara @ Gopal Ram, Shankar Ram, Mahabir Ram, Manilal Yadav and Deepnarayan @ Bibha Ram were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

Submission on behalf of appellants

9. Mrs. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of