Circumstantial evidence must be compelling and corroborated; mere last seen and body recovery insufficient for murder conviction without eyewitnesses or definitive proof.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.09.1997 passed by Sri Abhaya Shankar Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 187/1995 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable undersection 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Niwaran Mahto recorded on 07.02.1994, in which it has been stated that on 26.01.1994, the nephew of the informant, namely, Punit Kumar Mahto, aged 11 years, had come back home from school after the flag hoisting ceremony. At about 5:00PM, Rajendra Mahto (appellant) had come on a bicycle and had taken the nephew of the informant towards the pond. When the child did not return, even at 8:00PM, he and the others went in search of him. On 27.01.1994, an information about the missing child was also given to the Police. When Rajendra Mahto was asked, he had denied to have any knowledge about the whereabouts of the child. On persistent queries, Rajendra Mahto relented and disclosed that he had left the child near the pond. Even on throwing a net in the well and the pond, nothing could be found. It has been stated that Rajendra Mahto had called his relations about two days back, which created a suspicion in the mind of the informant. Today, i.e., 07.02.1994, some females were discussing that some family members of the accused were frequenting the hut at which, a search was made of the hut and on the western side, on digging the ground, the dead body of Punit Kumar Mahto was found.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Harla P.S. Case No. 16/94 was instituted under Section 364 , 302, 201/34 IPC . On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 187/1995. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 , 364, 201/34 , which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Shobha Kant Mahto has stated that Punit Kumar Mahto was his nephew. On 26.01.1994, a Flag hoisting ceremony was held at the office of Janta Dal and he had attended being the Secretary of the Northern area of Bokaro. His nephew and other students had gone to the school to participate in the flag hoisting ceremony and they had returned at 9:30AM. His nephew was also with them. He was not at home, the entire day. When he returned home in the evening, he came to know that his nephew Punit had gone out in the morning and has not returned back. They had searched for Punit in the house of their relatives, but he could not be found. His brother Niwaran had disclosed that he had come to know that Rajendra Mahto had taken Punit on a bicycle to the house of Ramdhan Mahto situated in front of a pond. Rajendra had stated that he had left Punit near the pond. He has stated that from 27.01.1994 in the evening, Manohar Mahto, who is the uncle of Rajendra Mahto started frequenting the house of Ramdhan Mahto and they also started keeping a distance which raised a suspicion in his mind and of the others. They started keeping a watch over Ramdhan Mahto and others. One day in the evening, the wife of Ramdhan along with the children had gone to the house of Manohar at which he asked Ramdhan Mahto about the whereabouts of his nephew at which, Ramdhan Mahto feigned ignorance. He has stated that in the meantim