In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and unbroken chain of evidence is necessary to satisfy the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, C.J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging a judgment and order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh, Dist-Cuttack in Sessions Trial No.73 of 2012 whereby the appellants have been held guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 /201 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC. No separate sentence has been imposed for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. A written report of the informant-Papun Kumar Patri addressed to the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Athagarh Police Station dated 17.07.2010 is the basis for registration of Athagarh P.S. Case No.132(4) of 2010 disclosing commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 /201 read with Section 34 of the IPC concerning an occurrence, which had taken place in the night of 16/17.07.2010.

3. It is evident from the FIR that the informant is the son of younger brother of the deceased. He alleged in the written report that the deceased had built a temple in the village Kadampatna and appellant No.1 was appointed as the priest of the said temple. The appellant No.2, the wife of appellant No.1 was working as ‘Kalishi’. At about 5 pm on 16.07.2010 the deceased informed the informant that he was going to the house of the appellant No.1 for recovery of money and would not return home in the night and would stay in the house of appellant No.1. Next morning, the mobile phone of the deceased was found to be out of coverage area. Thereafter, the informant with a co- villager Dipak Kumar Panda (PW 9) proceeded to search for the deceased whereafter they noticed the scooter of the deceased lying in a paddy field. They also noticed smoke coming out of the house of the appellants. They further found that the dead body of the deceased was lying with 80 percent of his body already burnt. However, he could identify the deceased with his face. He alleged that he knew that there was some dispute between the appellant No.1 and the deceased over money transaction and that was the reason, why the appellant No.1, his wife and his son had jointly killed him and with an intention to destroy the evidence, they burnt the house which was built by the deceased. After registration of the criminal case, the place of occurrence was visited by the investigating officer who conducted the inquest, sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination and seized certain materials for forensic examination in a State Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. One Sudhakar Pani, son of these appellants’ was also named in the FIR was found to be a juvenile and accordingly, he was forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board.

5. The persons sent up for trial by the police including these appellants were charged of commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

6. At the trial, the prosecution, in order to prove the charge examined altogether 27 witnesses. In addition to the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution also brought on record documentary evidence by marking exhibits including the report prepared by the DFSL, Cuttack, the post-mortem report and, also the injury report showing burn injuries found on the palm of appellant No.2. The prosecution set up at the trial a case that the son of the deceased