In cases of circumstantial evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a finger print found at the crime scene if the prosecution fails to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Special/Upper Session Judge, Raipur in ST No.21/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was friend of the deceased Rajbir Singh and both were having unnatural sex relations for last two years before the incident and on the date of incident at 10:30 PM the appellant along with the juvenile went to the house of the deceased at village Dhaneli and consumed alcohol and had carnal intercourse with the deceased, at that time some altercation took place between the juvenile and the deceased Rajveer Singh and because of that the appellant along with the juvenile killed the deceased by knife and stole a Led Tv, Tata Sky Set-top box, Mobile, Silver Chain and Wallet of the deceased. Thereafter the matter was reported by Khelu Ram, upon which a case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 380, 302 & 201 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant under Sections 380 & 201 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. The first question we have to consider is that whether the death of deceased Rajveer was homicidal in nature or not?

8. PW-1 Kheluram Nishad stated that his wife is sarpanch of village, whereas he was former sarpanch. The Police informed him that Rajveer has been murdered. The Police lodged dehati merg (Ex-P/1) and dehati nalisi (Ex-P/2) and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. He also admitted his signatures on notice (Ex-P/3), map panchnama (Ex-P/4), seizure memo (Ex-P/5) and spot map (Ex-P/6) but he denied all proceedings before him. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted this suggestion that he had gone to the house of Rajveer and he saw his dead body but he denied other suggestions of prosecution and stated that the Police took his signature on blank paper.

9. Sureshlata (PW-2) wife of deceased stated that her husband was living in Dhaneli and she used to come to Dhaneli in 2-3 months. On 21.10.2015 her husband was murdered in his house at Village Dhaneli and on 22.10.2015 she came to know about the murder of her husband and on 23.10.2015 she came to Raipur and saw the dead body of her husband. She