(1.) This appeal by the accused-appellant is directed against the judgment dated 27.03.08 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg in Sessions Trial No.42/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed murder of one Jagdish (the deceased) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for one month.
(2.) The police machinery was set in motion on the basis of FIR Exhibit P-15 lodged by PW-9 Janak Sahu, the son of the deceased. The entire prosecution story is contained in the FIR and therefore it would be worth referring the same in detail. In the FIR lodged on 03.10.2007 it is stated that on the same date at about 8 a.m. father of the complainant/informant Jagdish Sahu went on his cycle to village Hardas for purchasing rice and kerosene oil from the Society. He did not return till 12.30 afternoon. Then the mother of the complainant told him to find out whereabouts of his father. According to the complainant, when he was going in search of his father to village Hardas, on the way, he met with Dhan Singh Verma PW-4 who was working in his field.
(3.) The Trial Court has convicted the accused only on two grounds; i) motive and ii) recovery of a lathi and a shirt containing blood stains. Admittedly, this is a case where there is no eye witness. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In a case where the prosecution case arise on the circumstantial evidence, it must prove all the circumstances then it must link the circumstances in such a fashion so as to complete the chain of circumstances from which the only hypothesis which can arise on the basis of circumstances should be the guilt of the accused. If there is any chance of the accused being innocent or the crime having been committed by any other person then no conviction can be passed on such circumstantial evidence.