In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that rules out beyond any shadow of doubt the involvement of any other person and points to the guilt of the accused.

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgement passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The three appellants in these two appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' by their respective names) faced trial for allegedly having committed an offence u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'i. P. C. '), by intentionally causing death of Surendra Nayak (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in furtherance of their common intention.

( 2 ) SANS unnecessary details, the prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows :the deceased was serving as a Sweeper in the S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack and was residing at Kedaipali of Bhubaneswar in the house of his mother-in-law, Labanya Bewa (P. W. 7), along with his wife Rama Dei (P. W. l ). He used to come daily from Bhubaneswar to attend his work at Cuttack. On 4-5-1989, he left his house to catch the morning train for coming to Cuttack. He had to carry some clothes of his wife (P. W. 1) to get them stitched at Cuttack. Since the deceased left the home without carrying the clothes, P. W. 1 carried them and ran after him to hand-over and near the shop of one Prakash, she made over her new piece of cloth (M. O. III) and her old blouse (M. O. IV ). While standing on the road looking at her husband, she suddenly found that her husband, who was then proceeding towards Bhubaneswar Railway Station being attacked by the accused Bapi Nayak, Braja Nayak and Kalia Nayak with a Bhalla (M. O. I), a Katari (M. O. II) and a sword respectively. Her husband was running for life on the road. Immediately P. W. 1 rushed towards her house to inform about the incident to her mother (P. W. 7), whereafter both of them ran towards the place where P. W. 1 had seen the deceased running. As they reached near Hotel Venus inn they found the accused persons coming out of the hotel with weapons in hands stained with blood. Entering inside the hotel, they found marks of blood stains on the steps of the hotel and following the marks of blood they went up-stair and found the deceased lying dead on the roof in a pool of blood. At that point of time P. W. 8, the Inspector of Police of Capital Police Station having come to know about the incident from some source, came to hotel and the informant (P. W. 1) orally reported the incident which was scribed, treated as FIR (Ext. 1/l) and investigation was undertaken. During the course of investigation witnesses were examined, certain recoveries were made on the basis of information given by the accused persons while in custody. It came to light that P. W. 4 Prasanna Behara had also witnessed a part of the occurrence. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the accused persons.

( 3 ) THE accused persons pleaded their innocence and took the plea of false implication.

( 4 ) IN order to establish the accusations, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of whom P. Ws. 1, 4 and 7 were stated to be eye witnesses. Placing reliance on there evidence and the factum of recovery on the basis of information given by the accused persons while in custody, the learned trial judge found the accused persons guilty of offence punishable u/s. 302/34 I. P. C. convicted and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in a case where prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, there has to be a complete chain of circumstances with no missing link so as to rule out the possibility of innocence of accused persons, and to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is stated that P. Ws. 1 and 7 are the interested witnesses and their evidence lacks credibility and cogency. So far as P. W. 4 is concerned, it is submitted that he was a chance witness who was not able to throw light as to how he could be at the spot of occurrence. Additionally he submitted that the factum of recovery alleged t