Circumstantial evidence must establish each link in the chain beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction, and the failure to do so results in the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th October, 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.49 of 2009 arising out of G.R. Case No.574 of 2009 corresponding to Anandapur P.S. Case No.119 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Anandapur.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years for commission of the offence under section 302 of the ; and undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the offence under section 201 of the .

It is pertinent to mention here that along with this accused Bijay Kumar Nayak, three other accused persons, namely, Lahata @ Ainthu Munda, Prafulla Dehury and Mahendra Kumar Barik had faced the trial. But, the Trial Court, while acquitting those three of the charges under section 302/201 of the IPC , has convicted this accused (Bijay Kumar Nayak) for commission of the offence under section 302/201 of the and sentenced as above.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

On 12.12.2008 around 6.00 a.m., one Brundaban Sahu, S/o- Satrughna Sahu (Informant-P.W.6) presented a written report with the Officer-In-Charge (O.I.C.), Anandapur to the effect that during the morning hours, the elder brother of his father, namely, Raghunath Sahu (P.W.9), S/o-Braundaban Sahu, informed that his father (Satrughna Sahu) was lying dead near the Karnamali bridge. Hearing about the said incident from him, the informant (P.W.6) went with his elder father (P.W.9) to that place and saw his father Satrughna lying dead with injuries.

3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.17), in course of the investigation, examined the informant (P.W.6) and requested the Superintendent of Police to send the scientific team and dog squad to the spot. On the day of occurrence, the I.O. (P.W.17), having visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.15) and held the inquest over the dead body of Satrughna and prepared the report to that effect (Ext.16). The I.O. (P.W.17) sent the dead body for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. He (P.W.17) seized the wearing apparels of the deceased under seizure list (Ext.12) whereas the wearing apparels of the accused persons have been seized under Exts.8, 10, 11 & 13. The I.O. (P.W.17) sent the seized incriminating articles for chemical examination through Court and on completion of the investigation, submitted the Final Form placing this accused along with three other accused persons (since acquitted) to face the Trial for commission of the offence under sections 302/201/34 of the IPC .

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the said offences and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against this accused along with those three accused persons (since acquitted).

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total seventeen (17) witnesses during Trial. Out of them, the informant, who happens to be son of the deceased, is P.W.6. P.Ws.1, 2, 3,