The reliance on suspicion without substantive evidence to convict is a serious legal error; convictions must be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Above appeals are arising out of common judgment dated 23.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No.405 of 1994, hence taken together for hearing and disposal. The appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for respective offences with default stipulation. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of one Baleshwar Ram recorded by S.I. Abhay Kumar, Officer In-Charge of Balumath Police Station dated 01.03.1990 at about 11:00 p.m. is that on 27.07.1990 at about 05:00 a.m., the informant's father Chaman Mochi left his home on bicycle to go Civil Court, Latehar for doing pairvi in a case but did not return till night, therefore, informant along with other family members did not search him for 2-3 days due to habit of his father to stay at Latehar but after a week on 31.07.1990 at about 11:30 a.m., one Sabu Oraon told the informant that his cousin brother Surju Oraon had found a cotton bag in Nawada jungle which was shown to the informant and he identified that some documents in the bag were belonging to his father which he has taken with him while proceeding from the home. The informant also went to Latehar jungle towards the said forest area but no clue of his father was found. Thereafter, he went to Civil Court, Latehar where advocate's clerk told him that his father had come for doing pairvi in the case on that day, thereafter, he returned to his home. The villagers were also searching the father of informant and his skeleton dead body was found in the forest area along with his hairs and wearing slipper.

Accordingly, F.I.R. Balumath P.S. Case No.46 of 1990 dated 07.08.1990 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was lodged against the appellants on the basis of suspicion that there was dispute with the appellants, therefore, they have killed the informant's father.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants who had faced trial and held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no iota of direct or circumstantial evidence against the appellants showing their involvement in commission of murder of the deceased rather they have been falsely implicated on sundry ground of suspicion which never culminated into legal proof. No incriminating article has been collected during investigation showing involvement of the appellants in the alleged offence nor they have been seen by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution either taking the deceased from his house or causing his death by assaulting him. Admittedly, no dead body was recovered rather skeleton has been recovered in this case which has not been conclusively proved to belong to the deceased. The learned Trial Court has committed serious illegality by placing reliance upon scanty circumstantial evidence to the extent that the deceased had gone to do pairvi in the case at Civil Court, Latehar and there was enmity between deceased and the appellants. This circumstance itself cannot come within the parameter of conclusive evidence to hold the accused guilty for the offence of murder. Therefore, t