A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires clear proof of discovery pursuant to an accused's disclosure statement and admissible scientific expert testimony; failure to examine the DNA analyst and proof of prior police knowledge of the recovery site render such evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

(1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2015, passed in Sessions Case No.36 of 2015 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ku. Lata Sidar and another) by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh (CG), whereby she has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year.

(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 18.11.2014, at about 01:00 PM in the afternoon, at Village Chiraipali, in the jungle area, situated in front of thermocol factory, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Punjipathra, District Raigarh (CG), the accused-appellant herein assaulted Ku. Hemvati Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by means of wooden stick, hand and fist, due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died and, thereafter, in order to escape from the legal punishment, the appellant herein with the help of another co-accused person, burnt the dead-body of the deceased alongwith the weapon of the offence (i.e. wooden stick) and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence.

(3) It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant herein and the deceased both were Teachers in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Girwani. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the date of offence, the deceased went to the school but did not return back and, upon which, her father (objector herein), namely, Trinath Gupta (PW-10) lodged missing report on 24.11.2014 at about 11:00 AM. Thereafter, on the basis of aforesaid missing report, dehati marg (Ex.P/17) and Dehati Nalish (Ex.P/18) were registered by the police on 08.12.2014 and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/06 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/05. Spot map and panchnama were also prepared vide Ex.P/07 & Ex.P/04 respectively. The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/22 and on 8.12.2014 itself, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P/09, pursuant to which, it is alleged that dead-body of the deceased in burnt condition was recovered/seized vide Ex.P/11 and, thereafter, another memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded on 10.12.2014 vide Ex.P/10 and, on the basis of which, one mobile phone, alleged to be that of the deceased, was recovered/seized vide Ex.P/12. Further, merg intimation and FIR were also registered vide Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/19 respectively. The burnt dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Dharamsay Paikra (PW-04) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/01), no definite opinion was given regarding cause of death and nature of death and, indeed, it has been opined that exact opinion can be given after forensic investigation. In order to ascertain the recovered body to be that of the deceased, DNA test was conducted on the burnt bones, which were seized from the spot alongwith the blood samples of the parents of the deceased and, after DNA examination vide Ex.P/39, it has been opined that source of Exhibit-A (i.e. bones of the deceased) is the biological daughter of the source Exhibit C (blood sample of mother of the dece