In cases of circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion. The chain of evidence must be complete, cogent, and unerringly point toward the accused's guilt, excluding all other hypotheses of innocence; otherwise, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL)

Heard learned senior counsels for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Both the cases Cr. APP (DB) 1311 of 2019 and Cr. APP (DB) 1122 of 2019 filed on behalf of Rajeev Singh @ Rajeev Kumar and Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Singh challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 respectively. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Barauni P.S. Case 47 of 2012 they are being decided by this common judgment.

3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIV, Begusarai in S.Tr. No. 870 of 2013 arising out of Barauni P.S. Case No. 47 of 2012, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) with life imprisonment and under Section 302/34 of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100,000/- each (in default of payment of fine the appellants will further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years) and the appellants have further been convicted under Section 120(B) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 14 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each (in default of payment of fine he will further go rigorous imprisonment of two years) and under Section 27 (i) of the Arms Act sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each (in default of payment of fine they will further go rigorous imprisonment for one year). All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. As per the prosecution, an FIR bearing Barauni P.S. Case No. 47 of 2012 was lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of Sanjay Sah, PW-3, in which he stated that he and his brother Raj Kumar Sah run a miscellaneous shop at Bihat market. On 17.02.2012, he and his brother Raj Kumar Sah were sitting at the kirana shop and then at about 08:30 P.M. a co-villager namely Vinay Singh [Cr. APP (DB) 1122 of 2019], Jugnu Singh (non-appellant) and Champak Jha (non-appellant) along with two unknown persons came on two motorcycles. Jugnu Singh and Champak Jha asked Raj Kumar Sah to accompany them for some talk. The brother of the informant was reluctant to go but when both of them insisted his brother went with them. When he came to know that his brother had gone, he also followed them. His brother was taken near a well which is situated near Bichli Durga Sthan and all the accused persons started slapping his brother. When the informant intervened they pointed pistol at his brother and made him sit in the middle of the motorcycle and took him towards north. The informant tried to contact the officer-in-charge on cell phone but the call could not connect, he then informed the Dy.S.P. on mobile. After sometime the officer-in-charge reached there and he informed him about the said occurrence and he along with the officer-in-charge kept on searching for his brother, but was unable to find him. Later at 05:00 A.M. in the morning an information came that a dead body had been found lying in Banwari Bahiyar of Ibrahimpurtola. On this information he reached there with the officer-in-charge and identified the dead body of his brother, his brother had been shot dead. The informant further