Circumstantial evidence must conclusively point to the guilt of the accused without reasonable doubt for a conviction under murder charges.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.3.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in S.T. No. 61/06 convicting the accused / appellants under S.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. In the present case name of deceased is Kailash Bai, mother of accused / appellant No.1 - Hemlal.

3. As per prosecution case, on 2.5.2006 in between 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. when the deceased was working in her field, the appellants reached there and committed her murder by strangulating her. At the instance of appellant No.1, merg intimation (Ex.P - 25) was recorded on 2.5.2006 at 10.30 p.m. Inquest on the body of deceased was prepared on 3.5.2006 vide Ex.P - 13. Body was sent for post - mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. S. S. Devdas (PW - 8) vide Ex.P - 19 and as per postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from strangulation. On 6.5.2006 memorandum of accused / appellant No.1 was recorded vide Ex.P - 7 which led to recovery of shirt and pant vide seizure memo of Ex.P - 8. On the basis of disclosure statement of accused / appellant No.2, jeans pant & full shirt of which one button was missing were recovered. On 6.5.2006 itself on the basis of merg enquiry, FIR (Ex.P - 22) was registered against the present appellants and one juvenile accused namely Chamman under S.302 & S.120B IPC and S.5 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam.

4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused persons for the above offences, however, the trial Court, at the stage of charge, framed the charges under S.120B& 302/34 IPC against the accused persons. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused / appellants examined 14 witnesses in all. Statements of accused / appellants persons were recorded under S.313 of Cr.P.C. in which they abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication in the crime in question.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, the trial Court by the impugned judgment, convicted & sentenced the accused / appellants as described above.

6. Learned counsel for accused / appellants submits that;
there is no eyewitness to the incident and the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence but none of the circumstances has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court erroneously convicted the appellants for the alleged offence under S.302/34, therefore, the judgment impugned is liable to be quashed.
there is no evidence to conclude that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of appellants and thereafter her body was recovered. The witnesses of last seen have only seen the appellants coming from the side of field where the deceased was found dead.
as regards the recovery of button allegedly belonging to the shirt of appellant - Shailendra, but in absence of any other clinching evidence connecting the appellant with crime in question, it cannot be treated as an incriminating piece of evidence against the appellant.
absence of motive to commit the crime by itself is sufficient to acquit the appellant of the charge.

7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment impugned convicting & sentencing them as mentioned above being strictly in accordance with evidence of witnesses, calls f