Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires irrefutable proof establishing guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th of January, 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 326/2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under S.302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default sentence for R.I. for one year.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: -
2.1 Deceased - Premnath Ratre was working as a Patwari in vilage Hardi. He was residing in a rented premises belonging to the appellant. The said premises was situated at some distance from the house of the appellant. The appellant was also residing in the same village along with his wife.
2.2 The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had developed illicit relations with the wife of the appellant, therefore, the appellant was unhappy and he had a motive to commit murder of the deceased. On 28-5-2000, the appellant, deceased and one Kamta Prasad went for drinking liquor. They became heavily intoxicated. In the evening, appellant and Kamta Prasad brought the deceased on his motorcycle to his house, where the deceased started vomiting. The allegations are that while cleaning the vomits, the appellant caused strangulation to the deceased in his house.
2.3 At about 11.20 p.m., merg intimation (Ext. P31) was lodged by the appellant. The Investigating Officer reached to the village, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ext. P4) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was sent for post - mortem. The post - mortem examination was conducted by Dr. N. P. Mishra (PW 15). He found certain injuries on the dead body of the deceased and opined that his cause of the death was asphyxia on account of strangulation and it was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ext. P15.
2.4 On 11-6-2000, the appellant was taken into custody and he was detained in the Police Station. According to the prosecution, there he made extra judicial confession before Kavilal (PW 6), Shankar Singh (PW 16) and Tejram (PW 30). The confession was reduced into writing by the Sarpanch, Ramkumar Chouhan, of Gram Panchayat, Hardi. This document is Ext. P7.
2.5 Admittedly, there was no eye - witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Following are the circumstances, on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied and convicted and sentenced the appellant as above : -
(a) The deceased was lastly seen in the company of the appellant;
(b) The appellant made extra judicial confession in the Police Station; and
(c) There was a 'motive' with the appellant to commit murder of the deceased, because the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of the appellant.

3. Ms. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the alleged confession was recorded in the Police Station in presence of the Police Officers, while the appellant was in the custody of the Police, therefore, it was not admissible against him. About last seen, she argued that Lachharam (PW 8) had stated that after bringing the deceased to his house, the appellant had gone to call the doctors and the deceased had died thereafter, therefore, this circumstance would not be incriminating. She also argued that there is no definite evidence regarding motive. However, even if it is held to be proved, that itself would not lead to conviction of the appellant.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Smita Ghai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Co