The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The court emphasized the need for reliable and conclusive evidence to establish guilt based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT SUJOY PAUL, J. – This appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the judgment dated 30-4-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 134/1990 whereby appellant No. 1 was convicted for committing offences under sections 302, 364 and 201 of Indian Penal Code whereas appellant No. 2 was convicted under sections 302, 120-B, 364, 120-B and section 201 of Indian Penal Code. Both were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- in the first count, R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 500/-in the second count while R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- in the third count with default stipulation.

2. Indisputably, the appellant No. 1, Dinesh Patel died during the pendency of this case and accordingly this appeal stood abated for appellant No. 1. The interesting conundrum in this case is whether the appellant No. 2 was rightly convicted and directed to undergo sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence ?

3. Briefly stated, relevant facts are that the present appellant is father-in-law of deceased Vikki Bai. Dinesh was husband of Vikki Bai and son of appellant No. 2. In the year 1984, Dinesh solemnized marriage with Vikki Bai. After marriage, their matrimonial relations were not very cordial and on more than one occasion, Vikki Bai compelled to go to her parents’ house and stay there for considerably long time. She even remained there for about two years. Dinesh’s uncle Ramlakhan took her with an undertaking that proper care of Vikki Bai will be taken. On the intervening night between 27-8-1989 and 28-8-1989, Vikki Bai became untraceable from her matrimonial house. The appellant No. 2 Ramcharan lodged “Gum Insaan” Report in Police Station-Rampur Baghelan. The father of Vikki Bai, namely Madhav Singh also lodged a report on 29-8-1989 in the same police station stating that his daughter Vikki Bai has been murdered by the appellants. Since no action was taken on his report, Madhav Singh lodged the complaint before the Collector, Satna, DIG and IG, Rewa. Since his complaints aforesaid could not fetch any result, he filed a complaint before the Court below. In turn, the investigation was conducted and Crime No. 100/1990 was registered. After investigation, Challan was filed and in due course the matter was committed before the Sessions Court. The charges were framed. The appellants abjured their guilt and hence evidence was recorded and parties were heard by the Court below.

4. Total 14 witnesses entered into the witness box on behalf of prosecution and deposed their statements. This includes two chance witnesses, namely, Gopika Prasad (PW/3) and Amritlal (PW/12). Indisputably, in the instant case, the body of Vikki Bai could not be found. As per prosecution story, Vikki Bai was burnt alive in a brick furnace. However, no remains of Vikki Bai were found from the said furnace. On the basis of statements of aforesaid chance witnesses, namely, Gopika Prasad (PW/3) and Amritlal (PW/12), the prosecution intended to establish that Vikki Bai was last seen with appellants and appellants ultimately murdered her.

5. Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for appellants urged that the said story of prosecution and evidence led in support thereof were found to be not trustworthy by the Court below.

6. By taking this Court to para 30 and 31 of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for appellants urged that the Court below clearly opined that statements of chance witnesses aforesaid are unbelievable. In para-36 of the judgment, the Court below opined that the story and evidence led by prosecution is untrustworthy, but charges are proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Thus, it is to be seen whether circumstantial evidence are sufficient to hold the present appellant as guilty. By criticizing the findings given from paras 37 to 43 of the judgment, Shri Shobhitaditya argued that the Apex Court in Sunita vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2019 SC 3571 and Mohd. Yunus Ali Tarafdar vs. State of