Kartik Nath vs State Of Tripura

S. Talapatra, J

[1] Heard Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. PP for the state.

[2] The appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for committing murder and causing disappearance of evidence of offence. After regular trial, the appellant has been convicted for committing those offences and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder part of his natural life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation [for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC]. He has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. The appellant has challenged the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.07.2016 delivered in ST/T-1/0000034 of 2015 by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmangar by this appeal.

[3] The genesis of the prosecution's case is located in the complaint filed by one Sumen Nath, who is also known as Shibu Nath (PW-1), on 15.07.2015 to the Officer-in-charge of Dhamcherra Police Station revealing that on 14.07.2015 his mother namely Rekha Rani Nath was found missing at about 9-10 pm. Immediately, to find her whereabouts, a rigorous search was initiated, but without any success. Even on the following day, the said search continued. According to PW-1, when they detected 'Sari' of her it would be around 1-1.30pm. The police arrived there led by the SDPO along with other police officers. They removed the loose earth and found the body of the deceased covered inside a sack, but the neck portion was outside the sack. The body was exhumed.

[4] PW-1 suspected that the appellant committed that murder and caused disappearance of evidence. It has been further suspected that between 4pm of 14.07.2015 and 7am of the 15.07.2015, the deceased was murdered by sharp edged weapon. Based on the said written complaint, Damcherra PS case No. 2015/DMC/017 under Sections 302/201 of the IPC was registered and the investigation was taken up.

[5] PW-24, namely Harendra Debbarma was endorsed with the investigation. He has carried out the investigation to the last stage and submitted the final police report by chargesheeting the appellant under Section 302/201 of the IPC. The police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmangar, as the principal offence under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

[6] Having taken the cognizance, the Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302 of the IPC and separately under Section 201 of the IPC to, which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial in accordance with law. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has adduced as many as 24 witnesses including the informant (PW-1), one Dipen Malakar (PW-6), the post mortem doctors (PWs-21, 22 & 23) and the investigation officer (PW-24). That apart, eight documentary evidence including the post-mortem examination report (Exbt-6) and the inquest report (Exbt-5) were introduced in the evidence by the prosecution.

[7] After recording of the prosecution's evidence, the appellant was examined under Sections 281 and 313 of the CrPC for having his reply on the incriminatory evidentiary materials as surfaced from the records. During that examination, the appellant reiterated his plea of innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Thereafter, having appreciated the evidence, the Sessions Judge returned the finding of conviction followed by the sentence as stated above.

[8] Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no eye witness in the case and the prosecution has structured the case on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and for this purpose the prosecution reliance is apparent on PWs 1, 12, 14 and 15. According to Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel that appellant has been convicted without any legal evidence and merely on suspicion. According to her, there is no evidence at all to convict the appellant. The Sessions Judge by observing that the appellant buried the body in a lunga situated on the southern side of the house of the deceased has committed a gross error in law as there is no evidence to draw such inference. Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel has reinforced further that the appellant has been convicted on the apparent suspicion created by the prosecution. Even the evidence of the investigation officer that he had arrested the accused-appellant on 18.07.2015 and took him to police remand has been vaine, out of proportion. During interrogation, the appellant had made statement that if he would be taken, he would show the place of occurrence as well as the weapon of offence and the wearing apparels which he wore at the time of committing the offence. The appellant had led to discovery or to recover the weapon of offence, namely one spade, boti dao, and one light sky colour gamcha from the house of the deceased.

[9] PW-24 has proved the seizure list by which he seized all the materials in connection with the said police case. According to Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel the said part of the evidence has been accepted by the court of Sessions [the trial court] without any verification. How to utilize the evidence as collected qua under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is well-entrenched. Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that even the motive as attributed to the appellant for purpose of exterminating his mother-in-law (the deceased) is quite stunning inasmuch as it was an ordinary wear and tear in the family life. Moreover, it would be apparent the quarrel that took place in the night of 13.07.2015 did not expand any further as PWs 14 and 15 have in unison stated in the trial that they saw the appellant and the deceased coming by an Alto vehicle with a big shopping bag and entering into the house of the deceased. There was no sign of abnormalcy in their relation and after that nobody had seen the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased.

[10] According to Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel the inmates like Chaitali Nath daughter of the deceased and wife of the appellant, Nikhil Nath, father-in-law of the deceased and his two children and other inmates were in the house. They did not notice anything abnormal. But it has been alleged that the murder has been caused by the appellant.

[11] From the other side, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the state has quite succinctly submitted that if the evidence of PWs 1, 12, 14 and 15 is read in sequence, it would show that it is none other than the appellant who committed murder of the deceased (the mother in law of the appellant). Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has toiled hard to connect the separate episodes together. For that purpose, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has referred to the testimony of PW-1 where he had stated that the dead body could be located, when he saw the part of sari coming out of the loose earth and he had informed the police. The police came to the place of occurrence and exhumed the dead body and later on, they sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The inquest was done in the place of occurrence. It is seen from the inquest report (Exbt-5) that the body was decapitated and the head is only linked with the thin skin with the main part of the trunk. There was no other external injury.

[12] It appears from the inquest report that the lady was hacked in some other place, put into the sack and transported to that ditch where she was buried by the loose earth. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has further submitted that the appellant had led the police officer (PW-24), the Deputy Collector (PW-17) and two other independent witnesses (PWs-6 and 18). The appellant brought out the spade, the boti dao (a sharp kitchen instrument) and a towel (the gamcha) of blue colour from the concealment. Those were seized in presence of the independent witnesses who saw the entire discovery and as such, there cannot be different inference but that the appellant had committed the murder and caused disappearance of the evidence for screening him. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has extensively relied on the testimonies of PWs 1, 12, 14.

[13] PW-1, the son of the deceased namely Sumen Nath has stated that he noticed the portion of sari coming out of earth by which the body was covered. After the police came, the body was exhumed from the ditch and he could see that his mother was beheaded. According to PW-1, he learnt from the local people (but no name has been referred) that Kartik Nath disclosed to them that he would kill his mother by lathi. Hence he had suspected Kartik Nath [the appellant] as assailant. After police was informed, they came to the place of occurrence. He heard that Kartik Nath, the appellant, consumed poison but that was not so, as verified later on and he identified the appellant in the dock.

[14] PW-1, in the cross-examination, has stated that when he had returned on 14.07.2015 he found Chaitali and Kartik at home along with their children. He has also referred to the quarrel that broke out between the appellant and the deceased on 13.07.2015. He has further submitted that the appellant was implicated in a case for committing sexual offence against child and on being granted bail in that case, the appellant was staying at the house of PW-1. PWs 14 and 15, two witnesses from the neighbourhood have categorically stated that from 2pm to 3 pm on 14.07.2015, thy saw the appellant and the deceased together. They came by Alto vehicle and alighted therefrom in front of their house with a big shopping bag and they entered into the house, and thereafter they did not see the deceased or the appellant coming out of that house. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has made reference to the statement of PW-15, in particular, where the said witness has stated as follows:

"Within few minutes I had seen Kartik Nath was going out of the house abusing in filthy language towards his mother in law i.e. Rekha Nath stating that he would cut her and thereafter he will receive peace."

In the cross-examination, the suggestion about the said statement had been denied but PW-15 and she stood by her statement.

[15] PW-14, to some extent, has supported the testimony of PW-15, in particular, in respect of 'abusing' the deceased in filthy language. They have also stated that Rekha Rani Nath (the deceased) was found missing from that night. She has also referred to the quarrel that broke between the appellant and the deceased. Further, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has made an extensive reference to the testimony of PW-12 who has stated that someday in July of 2015 at about 8pm, he saw Kartik Nath (the appellant herein) and he had stated him that he had a quarrel with his wife and mother in law at his maternal house in respect of property. They had thrown out him from their house at night and he has further testified that the appellant had to spend the entire night and along with the children in the neighbouring house. The latter part of his testimony is merely hearsay.

[16] For purpose of appreciating the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to take out a meaningful exercise for revisiting the evidence that has been placed on record by the prosecution.

[17] PW-1, Sumen Nath alias Shibu Nath has stated that the appellant is married to his sister, Chaitali Nath. They used to stay in their house. They had two children. PW-7 has a mobile repairing shop. After returning from his shop on 14.07.2015, he did not find his mother in the house, then he has stated in the trial as follows:

"Then my sister Chaitali replied that she did not know. My father and my sister used to sell vegetables in Damcherra market. My father and sister also went out from home. My father and sister returned home at about 8 pm and after taking dinner my father went to his shop and he spent night there. Thereafter I enquired the neighboring people and my friend circle about whereabouts of my mother. I did not get any trace of my mother. On the following morning I informed the fact to Damcherra PS and gave a missing information in writing. I also inquired in different houses of my relatives. I also gave information to the houses of my other two sisters and of my maternal uncle's house. All my relatives came and everybody continued search in different areas. Thereafter while I along with one Madan Das and my maternal uncle Partha Nath in a lunga situated in the southern side of our house and while searching we noticed that there were loose earth and I noticed that portion of sari was visible and that sari was similar to the sari wore by my mother. Accordingly suspecting something we informed police. When we detected the sari it would be 1-1.30 pm. Immediately police came along with SDPO and other police officers. They removed the loose earth and found that body of my mother in a sack but the neck portion was outside the sack."

PW-1 has categorically stated that he strongly suspected that the appellant was the murderer of his mother. He has categorically stated that when police came in to house during investigation, the police found sign of blood in the wall of our hut and also in the baranda of their hut. Police seized blood from that place after collecting the same. He had signed the seizure list. PW-1 had identified the seizure list (Exhibit-2).

[18] In this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Exbt-2 which is the seizure list. But in the seizure list, the description has been narrated in the following manner:

(i) Some few red colour stain, collected from the veranda, said to be PO as by inmates which marks as Exh "B".

(ii) some red colour stain (few) collected from side of the wall, said to be PO by inmates, which marked as Exhibit-"A".

Nowhere they have been referred to as the stain of blood and no such report has reached to the court or to the investigating officer to identify the said red stain as the blood stain.

[19] Ordinarily, Kartik Nath, the appellant is the resident of Kanchanpur. 15 - 16 days before the occurrence, he started living in the village of the deceased by leaving his house at Kanchanur. On inquiry, PW-1 has informed that on the day of missing of his mother, he did not see his mother after coming back to home to take dinner at about 8pm. No further examination has been carried out in respect of PW-1.

[20] PW-2, Sujoy Debnath is the maternal uncle of PW-1. According to PW-2, the dead body was recovered from a lunga situated in the southern portion of their house. The body was kept in a sack and a portion of her head was outside the sack and sari could be visible from outside of the sack, and the body was covered with loose earth. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination at Panisagar CHC wherefrom the body parts were seized and sent for forensic examination, but PW-24 has admitted that he had filed the chargesheet before any report from the SFSL was received. Therefore, it can be inferred that there was no examination whether the red stain which was seized by the seizure list (Exbt-1) was blood. If that was blood whether that matched with blood of the deceased. There was no forensic examination in respect of whether the 'boti dao' that was seized by the police was actually used in commission of offence or not. It has been clearly stated that the tools used in the heinous offence, the boti dao, the spade and a towel (a gamcha of blue colour) were not also sent for the forensic examination. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the link between the weapon of offence [as projected] and the death of the deceased.

[21] PW-3, Mamata Murari is a material witness from the neighbourhood. She has stated that on the day when the deceased was found missing, on that day, at 11 am, Rekha Rani Nath (the deceased) came to their house and kept the children of the appellant for going to the market. She has stated that at about 3 pm Rekha Rani Nath and her son-in-law, the appellant returned by an alto vehicle. The appellant was carrying one shopping bag with articles. When they came, the children of the appellant rushed to Rekha Rani Nath. At that time, it was raining. As a result, one of the children of the appellant came with an umbrella to protect Rekha Rani Nath from getting wet. PW-3 has narrated the episode which may be relevant in the circumstances. For this reason, it has been noted as under:

"After some time he returned with Bidi. Again he came out to purchase momo. Shanta returned with momo. At about 4 pm or some after that when rain was stopped, she could not say when the appellant left the house on that day, meaning the house of the deceased. She heard of the murder of Rekha Rani Nath."

[22] PW-4, Mantosh Malakar is the driver of the Alto vehicle. He has narrated the circumstances which are quite normal that how the vehicle was hired and he brought the Rekha Rani Nath (the deceased) and the appellant to their house. Nothing else is available in his testimony.

[23] PW-5, Dayananda Choudhury is a professional photographer and he took the photographs of the dead body when it was exhumed out of the ditch being covered by the loose earth.

[24] PW-6, Dipan Malakar is according to the prosecution is one of the important witnesses whose testimony has two parts. PW-6 has stated that when Kartik was taken to Damcherra Police Station, he was called along with another person. The Executive Magistrate was also present there. In their presence, the appellant showed that how he had killed the deceased. According to him, from the police station he and Manichand (PW-18) were taken to the house of the deceased. In that house, Kartik produced the dao [bati dao] by which he killed the victim and also the spade by which he dug the earth and one gamcha which he wore at the time of committing the offence. The police seized those articles in his presence. He has identified the seizure list (Exbt-4) and the seized materials, viz dao (MO-I), gamcha (MO-II).

[25] PW-7, Mukul Nama is an onlooker and he did not state anything to support the prosecution's case.

[26] PW-8, Sushendra Suklabaidya saw the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and he has stated that the post-mortem examination was conducted on the following day and he has assisted the medical officer in performance of the post mortem examination.

There was no cross-examination at all for obvious reason.

[27] PW-9, Lalit Mohan Reang scribed the ejahar which was filed by PW-1. He has stated nothing material beyond the fact of his writing the ejahar.

[28] PW-10, Smt. Lalita Reang has stated that she did not know anything about the occurrence.

[29] PW-11, Lalbasai Reang has stated that in his presence, red stain was collected from veranda and from the inside wall by preparing the seizure list (Exbt-2). He did not divulge anything more.

[30] PW-12, Hira Dey has stated that on the following morning of the night of quarrel, he met the appellant with his two children. Thereafter, he made the following statement. He had stated that on previous night he had a quarrel with his wife and mother-in-law at their house on cash of Rs.40 only and they had driven him from the house. Consequently, he had to spend the entire night with his children in a neighbouring house. Then, along with the appellant and his two children, PW-12 went to their house and the appellant remained outside the house. PW-12 had entered inside of their house along with the children and he handed over the children to the deceased (mother-in-law of the appellant) and requested her to settle up the matter. After that, on the following day, the dead body of Rekha Rani Nath was found from a lunga (ditch), nearby their house. He identified the appellant.

[31] PW-13, Niranjan Nath seized the specimen of liver on 16.07.2015. He had also seized stomach and blood soaked gauze in order to identify the blood group. The seizure list has been marked as Exbt-3.

[32] PW-14, Rekha Malakar has been discussed already at time of recording the submission of Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP. Similarly, the testimony of PW-15, Bobi Das (Halam) has been substantively recorded along with PW-14 at the time of recording the submission of Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP.

[33] PW-16, Manoj Debbarma has stated that he was sent to the hospital to identify the dead body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination, as he had brought the dead body to the Panisagar Hospital. He has also stated that the dead body was found as buried in a paddy field.

No cross-examination was carried out.

[34] PW-17, the Deputy Collector was the witness of leading to discovery according to PW-24 and in the inquest procedure. In the trial she has stated as under:

"On 15.07.2015 being Deputy Collector I remained present at Nabagram, Damcherra for the purpose of inquest of a female deceased. On that date in my presence at about 4 pm in the evening inquest was conducted by police at Nabagram."

She identified her signature on the inquest report (Exbt-5). But she did not state anything about her presence even in the leading to discovery.

[35] PW-18, Manichand Malakar, according to the prosecution is an important witness in the case. He has stated that on 21.07.2015 at about 13.00 hours at Nabagram from the house of the deceased Rekha Rani Nath, the police seized one boti dao and one sky coloured gamcha. Beside are admitting the seizure list, Exbt-4, he has stated as under:

"I being an adjacent neighbour went to that house seeing police. Kartik Nath had brought out the spade, dao and gamcha. Spade was collected by him in a ditch area near the kitchen of the hut and the dao was concealed in the ceiling joint of two roofs and the gamcha brought out by him under a fridge of that house. He identified those articles as MO-I, MO-II and MO-III."

[36] PW-19, Nikhil Nath is the husband of the deceased. Importantly, he has stated in the trial as under:

"The day the dead body was recovered in the morning I asked Kartik to remain in my house saying that I was going out in search of my wife and when at about 2 pm I returned and found that Kartik fled away. The body of my wife was recovered at about 5 pm. Thereafter I got information that he went to Kanchanpur and consumed poison and that information was given to the police by us. After 4/5 days of his arrest police brought him at our house and being shown by him police recovered the spade, dao and gamcha by which he killed my wife."

[37] PW-20, Ranjan Kr. Reang denied to have any knowledge of the occurrence.

[38] PW-21, Pranabesh Chakraborty, a member of the team at Panisagar CHC which carried out the post-mortem examination of Rekha Rani Nath [tentatively aged about 50 years] has testified that the body was identified by Manoj Debbarma. The police had seized the sample of liver, stomach, kidney and blood. They had also received the inquest report. The only injury that was present on the dead body was found on neck and that was not self-inflicted one, even that was not a suicidal one. They have stated what has been recorded in the inquest report. The report was dispatched on 31.07.2015.

No cross examination was carried out in respect of PW-21.

[39] PW-22, Dr. Satish Kr. Sinha, is another member of the post-mortem team. He had indentified the report and the signature (Exbt-6). He was also re-examined and he has stated that at the level of C4 and C5 vertebra there was incised wound along the whole circumference of neck except entire skin of neck around 4-6 cm length and there was no other sign of injury on the deceased. During the post-mortem examination, the post-mortem team had collected the sample of liver, stomach, kidney and blood, and the reports were reserved for being finalized in expectation of getting the toxicological examination report. He had said nothing more than that.

[40] PW-23. Dr. Arunava Chakraborty was another member of the medical team which carried out the post mortem examination. He has categorically stated that the death of the deceased is most probably took place due to decapacitation of head causing brain damage but the team reserved the final opinion till availability of the report of toxicological examination. There was no direction from the medical team to follow particular type of toxicological examination. They had reserved their opinion in expectation of the toxicological report. According to the post mortem examination report, the injury was fatal in nature and that caused death of the deceased.

[41] PW-24, Harendra Debbarma is the investigating officer. According to him, it is not PW-1 but one Mukul Nama informed the police that he suspected that the missing lady must be buried somewhere. He sought for the police assistance. The said information was recorded in the GD. The police reached to that place called Nabagram where they met some witnesses. When they appeared to the suspected area, they noticed some loose earth. The SDPO was fully informed. Then the police made requisition for the Executive Magistrate and the District Mobile Forensic Team from Kailashahar. According to PW-24, hands and legs of the deceased were found tied. Dead body was simply buried in the earth. Thereafter, PW-24 prepared the inquest report after physical examination of the dead body in presence of the Deputy Collector. The inquest report (Exbt-5) has been brought in the evidence by PW-24. He has further stated that during the course of the examination, he had examined all available witnesses. He sent the sample of liver, stomach, blood and kidney to SFSL for examination, but he did not wait for SFSL report. He submitted the chargesheet. On 18.07.2015, he had arrested the appellant. On the basis of the statement of the appellant, he was able to recover the weapons of offence of that case, namely one spade, boti dao and one light coloured gamcha from the house of the deceased. The seizure list was also admitted in the evidence as Exbt-4. The articles were seized on having been produced before him. He has categorically stated that those articles were seized being shown by the accused. At the time of committing offence, he was wearing the said gamcha, according to PW-24.

In the cross-examination, PW-24 had made the following statement:

"Madhavi Nath @ Riya the daughter of the accused had witnessed the accused to commit murder."

But the prosecution did not adduce that witness in the trial even though Riya would be a child witness.

[42] On the touch-stone of the evidence, we have scrutinized the judgment of conviction afresh. The statement of PW-24 that PW-7 had called the police on noticing some loose earth and suspecting that the missing lady must be buried beneath that loose earth. But that statement was not corroborated by PW-7. On the other hand, the claim of PW-1 is that he informed the police after seeing the part of sari of his mother below some loose earth was also not corroborated by PW-24.

[44] Be that as it may, after exhuming the dead body of Rekha Rani Nath when the inquest was carried out, it was found that the body was decapitated and was concealed in a sack. The body was transported to Panisagar CHC for post mortem examination. We are shocked to discover that in the post-mortem examination, the team of the doctors did not make any attempt to ascertain the time of death. However, they have recorded the time of post mortem examination i.e. between 12.15 pm to 12.45pm. As such, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish when the death had occurred. Most importantly, the witnesses have categorically stated that if the assumption of PW-1 is believed that the death had taken place from 4 pm to 7 am of the following day of 14.07.2015, then, presence of Chaitali Nath cannot be disbelieved but the investigating officer has withheld such an important witness from examination.

[44] First of all, the first episode which should have the pivot ring of evidence is the time of death. Even the red colour stains which were seized from the veranda and the inside wall were not sent for the forensic examination. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish again whether those were the blood stain or not. As such, we do not know where the murder had taken place. It can be presumed with certainty that the murder did not take place where the dead body was exhumed. It was transported to that place as the earth was loose and that was excavated for purpose of concealing the dead body as the prosecution story goes on. The spade did not have any mark though it was found almost near the ditch where the dead body was exhumed. The weapon of assault as projected ought to have been sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), but no report in that regard has been placed in the trial to ascertain whether there was any blood stain or whether that was at all used for causing death. Most importantly the seized dao was available in the trial but that was not shown to the post-mortem doctors to say whether the nature of cut available around the neck could be caused by that dao or not. As such, we have failed to find out any link to say that the said weapon was used for purpose of committing the murder.

[45] The prosecution has hugely relied on PW-3 who has stated about the quarrel. Even if that quarrel is not denied, on the following day, PWs 14 and 15 have seen the appellant and the deceased were coming from the market by a Alto vehicle. It gives a completely contrary psychological profile to believe the continuum of bitterness. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to hold without any doubt that it is the appellant who has plotted the murder and executed the murder following the said quarrel which has been set-up as the motive. The quarrel was on a petty issue and we have come across the witness in that regard. The neighbouring witness have intervened in the matter and took the children of the appellant to the house of the deceased and thereafter, as it appears, the deceased and the appellant went out for shopping and they came back. True, it is that immediately after that there was quarrel and the accused came out but thereafter he went out for purchasing bidi and momo. The prosecution, as it appears to us, has given an indication that a space was created by the appellant for committing the murder. But, unfortunately PW-24 has made a specific statement that his daughter Riya Nath saw committing the murder. If that is the information to the investigating officer, he was duty bound at the trial to say why he did not examine or brought that witness before the trial court, even though she was of tender age. Be that as it may, the statement of a witness of tender age can be recorded following the process as provided by Section 118 of the Evidence Act.

[46] Having appreciated the evidence as a whole, we are in agreement with Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP that strong suspicion has been built up by the prosecution. But, it is a sound principle of appreciation of evidence that the suspicion, however, may be strong, cannot form the basis of conviction. When there is no direct evidence, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, and the requirement in such cases is to prove every episode by which the prosecution wants to form the chain of the circumstances to prove that the hypothesis of innocence against the accused has been completely shattered and it is none but the accused had committed the murder. We are constrained to observe that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden in this regard. They have left the episodes at lurch. There is no convincing evidence on record to affirm the conviction and accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence dated 27.06.2016 delivered in ST/T-1/0000034/15 stand interfered with and set aside.

In the result, the appellant is acquitted from the charge on benefit of doubt. Hence the appeal stands allowed. The appellant be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Send down the LCRs.