Circumstantial evidence must conclusively link the accused to the crime; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

1. The Appellants stand convicted under S.302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each as ordered on 30.6.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1998.

2. The body of deceased Bhajendra @ Piti Prasad Sai was found lying near the bushes at 5:00 pm on 16.10.1998. The police station stated to have been 17 Kms. away, FIR (Exhibit P - 5) was lodged by his brother PW - 2, Jagdish Prasad Sai on 17.10.1998 in the morning against unknown. The postmortem of the deceased (Exhibit P - 1) was conducted by PW - 1, Dr. Yashwant Kumar Toppo. Ten incised wounds and one lacerated wound were found on the body of the deceased. The cause of death was opined due to shock and cerebral haemorrhage resulting from incised injuries and consequent bleeding. Death was opined homicidal in nature and the time elapsed since death was between 36-45 hours.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence including the last seen theory. It was therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances ruling out the possibility of the deceased having parted company with the Appellants leaving the only inescapable conclusion that the Appellants were the assailants. If there was any break in the link of chain of circumstances compatible with the innocence of the accused or if there was any doubt that the deceased was last seen in the company of the Appellants and there existed on basis of the prosecution evidence alone, a possibility of the occurrence having taken place in a different manner by some others, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the Appellants. The Trial Judge has convicted on the basis of suspicion only relying on the last seen theory which has not been explained coupled with alleged recovery of Chappals of the Appellants from the place of occurrence which has also not been proved. The Trial Judge has himself opined that the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the Appellants which they were wearing till the third day of the occurrence and were carrying weapon of the assault in their trousers was highly improbable and that there was no forensic report available despite the clothes having been sent to the FSL, regarding blood stains on it and yet relied upon it as an incriminating material to convict. PW - 11, Nirmala Bai, wife of the deceased deposed that the Appellants came to the house of the deceased at 9:00 am, having left returned at 11:00 am and then the deceased left home with them at 3:00 pm. But she has simultaneously stated that she left for the village pond to have a bath around 2 to 2:30 pm. If she left the house before the Appellants departed alongwith the deceased, it cannot be conclusively held that the Appellants were all along together with the deceased in proximity of time before the body was recovered at 5:00 pm. The possibility cannot be completely excluded that the deceased and the Appellants left the house separately in different directions and destinations. The deceased was in an illicit relationship with one Ludhri Bai, wife of Girdhari who was in military service and would remain away from home on duty. The deceased would spend nights at her place and she was persuading the deceased to abandon his family and run away with her and for that reason she had left home with cash and jewellery which she allegedly kept it with the Appellants who worked as tailors in the house of Rajesh. On the date of occurr