Conviction cannot rely solely on suspicion; circumstantial evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Sealdah, 24 Parganas (South) in Sessions Case No. 12(05)07 the appellants have filed the present appeal. They have been convicted under S.302 read with S.34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of such fine a further period of imprisonment for six months.

2. The victim Gokul Panda was a priest, who earned his livelihood by going to various places to offer puja. He was the regular priest in a factory owned by the complainant Subal Chandra Dey Dhara. He was permitted to stay in the factory premises as he had no other place of residence. The victim would leave the premises at 5.00 a.m. and return by 9 O' clock at night. On 29th January, 2007 Subal Chandra Dey Dhara received information from his employee that Gokul Panda was lying under the tin shed of the courtyard of the factory. He was informed that the victim had bleeding injuries on his ears. The police were informed and they came to the spot and removed the victim to the hospital. However, on reaching the hospital the Doctor informed the police that the victim had died. The police then seized some articles which were lying in the factory near the spot where the victim was found, including a wine bottle, two glasses, one kettle, one steel bowl, a napkin and a shawl. The complainant, that is the owner of the factory, lodged the complaint and the First Information Report was registered against the unknown persons. Later during the course of investigation the appellants were arrested. Appellant No. 1 is also a priest who would conduct the puja at various places everyday. Appellant No. 2 is his friend while appellant No. 3 is his brother - in - law. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 used to live in the same premises.

3. In order to bring home the charge against the appellants the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. It must be mentioned here that there were no eye - witnesses to the incident and, therefore, the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

4. PW 1, the complainant, has reiterated what is stated in his complaint. According to him, there were many marks on the neck of the victim. He has disclosed in his evidence that a duplicate key to the factory premises was in the custody of the victim and no outsider was allowed to enter the workshop.

5. PW 2 is the landlord of appellant Nos. 1 and 3 has been examined in order to establish that the appellants normally returned home at 8 p.m. while on 28th January, 2007 they returned at mid - night.

6. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the testimony of PW 3. He was an employee of Nabanna Hotel. He claims to have seen the victim offer puja in their hotel which was usually performed by the appellant No. 1. He has spoken about a quarrel occurring between appellant No. 1 and the victim. However, he has admitted that since both the appellant No. 1 and the victim were speaking in Oriya, he was not able to understand the words spoken during the altercation. This evidence according to the prosecution establishes the motive of the Appellant No. 1 to kill the deceased.

7. PW 4 is the Doctor, who was present when the victim was brought to the NRS Medical College and Hospital on 29th January, 2007. He has stated that the victim was dead when he was brought to the hospital. The witness has conceded that he had neither mentioned any identification marks of the deceased nor injury marks on the body of the victim in his report.

8. PW 5 is a constable who took the body to the autopsy surgeon and identified the same before him.

9. PW 6 is another important wi