In cases based on circumstantial evidence, conviction is unsustainable unless the prosecution establishes a complete, unbroken chain of events leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Contradictory witness testimonies and failure to prove the proximity of the 'last seen' event vitiate the circumstantial case.

JUDGMENT :

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and learned A.P.P.

2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that out of five appellants, appellant Nos.1 and 2, namely, Bhagwat Yadav and Yogendra Yadav @ Yogenshwar Yadva respectively have been died and their appeal was abated vide order dated 04.12.2025. The name of surviving appellants, Ujagar Yadav, Manku Yadav and Bhim Yadav has been renumbered and the appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.

3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 14.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 17.11.2003 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge-FTC No.2, Godda in S.C. No.96 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

Factual Matrix

4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbayan of Bechan Yadav recorded on 09.12.1994 at about 9:00 pm at Sadar Hospital, Godda is that there is a land dispute between the informant and Fuleshwar Yadav and the case is pending in consolidation court in which the date was fixed on 09.12.1994. It is alleged that on 08.12.1994 at about 4:00 pm the informant along with Shyam Yadav went to village, Chilona to manage witnesses but could not succeed and when he along with his father–in-law were returning back to his village, Ramnagar, Yogendra Yadav, Bhim Yadav, Manku Yadav, Ujagar Yadav and Bhagwat Yadav intercepted them for taking dinner. On request of accused persons, Bechan Yadav(informant) left him and returned back to his own village. It is further alleged that till the night, Shyam Yadav did not return to his house, then a search was conducted and Shyam Yadav was found under unconscious state lying near 6th pillar of bridge over the Kajiya river. The informant brought Shyam yadav on a rickshaw to Sadar Hospital, Godda and admitted him for treatment, where the police arrived and fardbayan of the informant was recorded. It is suspected by the informant that Yogendra Yadav and others have brutally assaulted Shyam Yadav and might have administered something and thrown his body below the bridge of Kajiya river.

5. On the basis of above information, Godda Musaffil P.S. Case No.367 of 1994 was registered for the offence under sections 341, 307, 323, 504/34 of PC. In course of investigation, the said Shyam Yadav died. Accordingly, section 302 of IPC was added. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named appellants for the offence under sections 342, 302/34/120-B of IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C. No.96 of 2003 was registered.

6. In course of trial, altogether 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses following documents were also adduced:-

Ext.1 Signature on Fardbayan

Ext.1/1-Signature on formal FIR

Ext.2 & 2/1-Signature on inquest report

Ext.3-Post Mortem Report

Ext.4-Fardbayan and signature

Ext.4/1-Pages of fardbeyan

Ext.5-Charge-sheet

Ext.6-Certified copy of formal FIR of Godda (M)No.245/1988

Ext.7-Certified copy of formal FIR Godda (M)205/1987.

7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication.

8. Learned trial court after evaluating th