The prosecution must establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.6.2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja (Ambikapur) in ST No.521/2011 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that around 5-6 days prior to 12^th October, 2011, or around that time, the appellant assaulted the deceased namely, Dharma @ Dharam Singh near canal of village Aragahi with a stick and committed his murder. After committing the murder, in order to conceal the evidence, the appellant has thrown the dead body in a canal and hidden the club near bushes.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 12^th October, 2011, at about 8.20 hours, (PW-3) Majrul Haq lodged a report stating that when he was going to the village Aragahi, on the way, he saw decomposed dead body of about 4-5 days old. Merg intimation (Ex.-P/3) was registered. After giving notice (Ex.-P/4), inquest was conducted and inquest report (Ex.-P/5) was prepared. Spot map (Ex.-P/6) was prepared. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. SK Sinha (PW-10) and he gave the postmortem report vide Ex.-P/12, according to which, fracture of 1^st to 5^th ribs of right side and 1^st, 4^th & 5^th ribs of left side of the chest was found. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and the death is homicidal in nature.

4. After completion of the inquest proceeding and upon receipt of postmortem report (Ex.-P/12), an FIR against unknown person was registered on 17.10.2011 vide Ex.-P/13. Identification Panchnama of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.-P/2. During investigation, memorandum statement of the accused/ appellant was recorded vide Ex.-P/8 on 17^th October, 2011 by the Inspector BL Singh (PW-13). In pursuance of the memorandum of the appellant, one club which was used for committing murder was recovered from the spot vide Ex.-P/9. Slippers, an amount of Rs.364 (inclusive of notes and coins) and one Gamcha (Towel) were seized from the spot vide Ex.-P/11.

5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate from where the case, being triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the trial Court where the charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC . The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.

6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, in defence, neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been relied upon.

7. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court by the impugned judgment, on appreciation of evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment, which led to filing of present Appeal by the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but the nature of circumstantial evidence is not as such which could be made basis for his conviction. The trial Court has relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before (PW-5)