C A V Judgment

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.33/2014, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By the impugned judgment, appellant- Divya Chandrakar in CRA No.985 of 2015 has been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced as under:-

(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)

3. By the same judgment, co-accused/appellant- Shyambati in CRA No.951/2015 has been convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced as under:-

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.02.2014 at about 3:00 PM, appellant- Divya Chandrakar was admitted in Aditya Hospital, Mahasamund on account of abdominal pain. It is alleged that she delivered a female child in the hospital and thereafter committed murder of the newborn by throttling and flushed the dead body in the toilet, with the assistance of her mother co-accused- Shyambati. The dead body was discovered when the toilet got choked and upon inspection by hospital staff, a newborn child was found in the flush tank. On the basis of written report submitted by PW-8 Dr. Jyoti Kalikoty, merg was registered and thereafter FIR bearing Crime No.124/2014 was lodged against the accused persons.

5. After due investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court, in which, accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents and Article ‘A1’. In defence, the accused persons have examined none and not exhibited any document. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

7. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused persons/appellants for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which, these appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein, questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in law, as the same is based solely on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellants. It is contended that there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident, no evidence of last seen, and no recovery of any incriminating material connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence; thus, the entire case rests on mere suspicion and conjectures. It is further submitted that the most crucial link in the prosecution case, namely, the identity of the deceased newborn child, has not been established. No DNA examination has been conducted to prove tha