Circumstantial evidence and confessions without corroboration cannot sustain a murder conviction due to the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned amicus curiae for the appellant(s) and learned A.P.P.

2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgement, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Both these appeals are directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 27-03-2003 (sentence passed on 29-03-2003) passed by Sri Ravindra Prasad Ravi, learned 8^th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 20/2001 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Shatrughan Prasad Dangi recorded on 25-08-2000 in which it has been stated that he had gone to Hazaribag for the treatment of his wife Usha Devi and after getting her treated, he had reached Chauparan by Rahul Bus at 8:30PM. It has been stated that the informant asked his wife to stay near Chatra More and in the meantime, he had gone to return the dues of Rs. 4,500/- to Laxmi Sao. Since the shop of Laxmi Sao was closed, the informant had returned back to Chatra More and started going on foot with his wife towards his village. On the way, the informant had met four fakirs who sells rings and after having small talk, all the four persons left. When the informant reached Jhumri Tar at 10:00PM, the said four persons surrounded him. While two persons took him towards the field, the other two persons took away his wife. The informant was subjected to assault as a result of which he became unconscious. The miscreants had taken away Rs. 4,500/- which was in the possession of the informant. After some time, the informant regained consciousness, but he could not find his wife and on search, he found his wife lying dead at some distance. The informant came to the village and informed about the incident after which the informant was taken to the Police Station and thereafter, he was medically treated for his injuries.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chauparan P.S. Case No. 150/2000 was instituted under Sections 302, 394, 376/34 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. 20/2001. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as twenty witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Anil Singh and P.W.2 Bipin Kumar Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.3 Basudeo Mahto has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit- 2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the articles which were mentioned in the seizure list were not seized in his presence.

P.W.4 Prameshwar Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.5 Jagu Mahto is the father of the deceased Usha Devi who has stated that he suspected his son-in-law of committing the murder of his daughter. He had gone to see his son-in-law at Chauparan Hospital, but he had not seen any injuries on his person. He got his daughter married to Shatrughan Prasad Dangi about a year back and whenever his daughter came home, she used to disclose to her mother about the torture committed upon her by her husband. She also used to disclose that Shatrughan Prasad Dangi was having an illicit affair with his cousin sister-in-law.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that no one had any suspicion of his son-in-law commi