Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of circumstances; lack of direct evidence leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The appellant faced trial with two other persons in S.T. Case No.18/105 of 2001 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur for committing murder of one Sadhu Das in village Badasia under Bahalda Police Station of Mayurbhanj district. By judgment passed on 18.12.2001, the trial Court, while acquitting the other two persons, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, runs as follows:- On 03.01.2001, in village Badasia, a dead body was found floating in the village tank. One, Bishnu Halda informed the Grama Rakhi of the above. Hearing this, the Grama Rakhi along with other persons of the village went to the tank and found a cycle parked in the middle of Chatani Sahi road. A plastic sack containing rice was kept in its carrier along with a pair of slippers tied to it. A bag containing some vegetables also hung from the handle. No one came forward to claim the cycle. A crowd had gathered on the embankment of the tank. Marks of dragging along with blood were seen near the field of Padmini Halda along with dried blood at several places. A blood stained steel glass was also lying nearby. In the eastern portion of the tank, a pant and a shirt were found floating. In the western side, in about knee deep water, a corpse was floating. Being advised by the Sarpanch, the Grama Rakhi, Laxminarayan Patra went to Jamda Police Station and lodged F.I.R. On such report, Bahalda P.S. Case No.01 of 2001 was registered under Section 302 of IPC , followed by investigation. In course of investigation, said dead body floating in the village tank was identified to be of Sadhu Das. Further, during the investigation, the complicity of the appellant and two other persons namely, Nauru Bage and Marda Bage came to light for which charge-sheet was submitted against them under Sections 302 /34 .

4. The defence plea was of denial and false implication.

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses and proved sixteen documents. Prosecution also proved six material objects. Defence did not adduce any evidence.

6. After considering the evidence on record, particularly that of P.Ws. 4, 6 and 11 coupled with the recovery of a blood stained budia (axe), the trial Court was of the view that Sadhu Das was brutally murdered by the present appellant. Thus, while acquitting the other two accused persons, the trial Court convicted the present appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. Heard Ms. Diptimayee Dhal, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent.

8. Ms. Dhal would argue that the trial Court convicted the accused without any evidence, either direct or circumstantial. Prosecution could not establish a complete chain of circumstances inspite of which, the trial Court, basing on the inadmissible statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., held the accused guilty. Since the other two accused persons facing trial stood on the same footing as the appellant and were acquitted of the charge, the appellant should also have been acquitted.

9. Per contra, Mr. D. Mohanty would argue that the chain of circumstances against the accused is complete in every respect, inasmuch as there is clear evidence of prior enmity and assault by the accused persons on the deceased a few days prior to the occurrence along with evidence of threat being given by them to kill him. On the date of occurrence, the accused came to the house o