A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is unsustainable if the prosecution fails to establish foundational facts to exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses; the shifting burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked until the prosecution proves the basic incriminating circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. It is here to be mentioned at the very outset that during pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant no. 2 namely, Dhanraj Sahu has died and vide order dated 17.11.2025, the appeal on behalf of appellant no. 2 Dhanraj Sahu was abated. Now, the appeal is being heard only on behalf of alive appellants namely, appellant no. 1 Sumeshwar Sahu and appellant no. 3 Rajendra Sahu (who is now re-numbered as appellant no. 2).

3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.02.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Chatra in S.T. No. 49 of 1987 (arising out of Simaria P.S. Case No. 24 of 1986), whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. They have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per written report of informant Parmeshwar Kumar Sahu (P.W.-4) is that the sister of the informant namely, Lilwa Devi was married with Sumeshwar Sahu about 10 years ago. It is alleged that due to non-fulfilment of dowry dues, there was bitter relationship between husband and wife and informant’s sister was subjected to cruelty, harassment and physical assault at the instance of her husband and other relatives and they also used to threaten to kill her and her two children by administering poison. It is alleged that prior to one month of occurrence, the sister of informant along with her children came to parental home and after sometime, she was sent to matrimonial home by her father without fulfilling the dowry demand agreed earlier due to poverty. It is further alleged that on 27.01.1986 (Monday) in the afternoon it was communicated by one Sudershan Prasad Sahu that informant’s sister has been killed in her sasural by throwing her along with her two children into well. It is further alleged that the husband of the deceased had illicit relationship with one lady in village, which was also a reason of bitter in relationship between husband and wife. The informant has suspected that husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased have committed the aforesaid offence.

5. On the basis of above information, FIR being Simaria P.S. Case No. 24/1986 was registered under Section 302, 201 & 34 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons / appellants for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 49/1987 was registered and trial was proceeded.

6. In course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

P.W.-1 : Sitaram Sao. P.W.-2 : Sohar Sahu.

P.W.-3 : Fulchand Sao.

P.W.-4 : Parmeshwar Kumar Sahu (Informant).

P.W.-5 : Kishun Sao.

P.W.-6 : Jamuna Prasad Sao.

P.W.-7 : Saryu Prajapati.

P.W.-8 : Kedar Sahu.

P.W.-9 : Budhan Dusadh. P.W.-10 : B