Jitendra Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Two appellants namely, Jitendra Kumar (A-1) & Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) in Cr.A.No.401/2014; two appellants namely, Jayanand Sahu (A-2) & Nand Kumar @ Nandu (A-4) in Cr.A. No.523/2014; and sole appellant namely, Arun Kumar (A-3) in Cr.A. No.677/2014, have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 31-3-2014 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.193/2012, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently: -

Jitendra Kumar (A-1), Jayanand Sahu (A-2), Arun Kumar (A-3) & Nand Kumar (A-4)

Conviction

Sentence

Sec. 302 of the IPC (two times for committing murder of Gopichand & Jagbai)

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month

Sec. 120B of the IPC

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month

Sec. 449 of the IPC

Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days

Sec. 460 of the IPC

Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days

Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5)

Conviction

Sentence

Sec. 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (two times for committing murder of Gopichand & Jagbai)

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month

Sec. 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month

Since all the three criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 31-3-2014 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.193/2012 and since common question of fact and law is involved in all the three appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Case of the prosecution, in the nutshell, is that in the intervening night of 13th & 14th June, 2012, at 03:00 a.m., at Village Thangan, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, appellants A-1 to A-4 unauthorisedly trespassed the house of Gopichand & Jagbai and in furtherance of their common intention conspired together and assaulted Gopichand & Jagbai by iron rod & wooden stick and committed their murder and thereby committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution is that husband of A-5 – Bhushan Soni went missing on 26-6-2011 and consequently, A-1, who was posted in Police Station Dabhra, used to help Gopichand – father of Bhushan Soni, in tracing out his son Bhushan Soni and meanwhile, A-1 came into contact with A-5 and both developed love affair, but since father-in-law & mother-in-law of A-5 namely, Gopichand & Jagbai did not like their affair and they have also attempted to alienate the property which A-5 & her husband have share, A-1 conspired with A-2 to A-4 and in furtherance of their common intention, in the intervening night of 13th & 14th June, 2012, A-1 to A-4 assaulted Gopichand & Jagbai by which they have suffered injuries and died. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the intervening night of 13th & 14th June, 2012, Gopichand & Jagbai were sleeping and after hearing some noise coming from the said place, Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) – another daughter-in-law of Gopichand & Jagbai being wife of Preetam Kumar Soni (PW-6), woke up and removed the curtains where she saw that a person wearing black pant and white shirt was coming towards the channel gate and upon being asked by Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1), the person replied “humlog hai” (we are here), thereafter, Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) heard the noise of vehicle and she came out and saw that some people ran away. Thereafter, Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) went to see her father-in-law and mother-in-law who were lying on bed in a pool of blood and she noticed injury over head and ear portion of Jagbai and injury over ear and forehead of Gopichand from a sharp-edged like weapon. Jagbai was breathing faintly and upon seeing the incident, Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) screamed for help saying bachao-bachao due to which the neighbours namely Chanda Bai, Ghasia Mohan and others came rushing to help and took Jagbai & Gopichand for treatment, but Jagbai died instantaneously, whereas Gopichand was escorted to hospital and he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) lodged oral report at Police Station Dabhra stating that her sister-in-law (A-5) has been creating dispute with her father-in-law and mother-in-law for last one year regarding partition of property and she had also threatened her mother-in-law & father-in-law with life.

Based on the aforesaid information, FIR Ex.P-1 was registered and information of sudden and untimely death of Jagbai & Gopichand was lodged vide Exs.P-2 & P-6, respectively. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3 and summons were issued to the panchas vide Exs.P-7 & P-9. Inquest was prepared vide Exs.P-8 & P-10. On the recommendation of panchas, dead bodies of deceased Gopichand & Jagbai were sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-19). Postmortem report of deceased Gopichand is Ex.P-45 according to which cause of death is shock due to internal haemorrhage due to injuries and death was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report of deceased Jagbai is Ex.P-46 according to which cause of death is shock due to internal haemorrhage and injury to vital organ like brain and death was homicidal in nature.

The appellants were apprehended. Memorandum statement of appellant Jitendra Kumar (A-1) was recorded vide Ex.P-13 pursuant to which, iron rod, club and clothes wore by him were recovered from him vide Ex.P-14. Similarly, memorandum statement of appellant Jayanand Sahu (A-2) was recorded vide Ex.P-15 pursuant to which clothes worn by him on the date of incident and an unnumbered motorbike Hero Honda CD Deluxe were seized vide Ex.P-16 and a wooden club was also seized vide Ex.P-17. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant Arun Kumar (A-3) recorded vide Ex.P-18, jeans & shirt worn at the time of incident were seized vide Ex.P-19 and a wooden club was seized vide Ex.P-20. From appellant Nandkumar @ Nandu (A-4), pursuant to his memorandum statement Ex.P-21 wherein he admitted receipt of Rs. 20,000/- in advance and paid Rs. 4,000/- each to accused Arun & Jayanand and kept Rs. 12,000/- with himself out of which Rs. 10,000/- were spent, and remaining Rs. 2,000/- were seized vide Ex.P-22. From appellant Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5), a mobile of Samsung make bearing No.8120290518 was seized vide Ex.P-23 and call details of the same was sought vide Ex.P-51 which were received vide Ex.P-52. Most of the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but the FSL report was not placed on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

On 10-9-2012, test identification parade was conducted by A.K. Uraon (PW-18) in which Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) has identified Jitendra Kumar (A-1) only and for rest of the accused, identification parade has neither been conducted nor placed on record.

The investigating officer after completion of investigation, charge-sheeted the appellants herein before the jurisdictional criminal court who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Janjgir-Champa from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, has examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 60 documents Exs.P-1 to P-60. The appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence and they have been falsely implicated. They have examined two witnesses Suresh Kachchhap (DW-1) & Mansai Paikra (DW-2) and also exhibited seven documents Exs.D-1 to D-7 in support of their case.

The trial Court after appreciating ocular, oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which these three appeals have been preferred.

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for appellants Jitendra Kumar (A-1) & Arun Kumar (A-3), would submit that the test identification parade has been conducted on behalf of the prosecution with a great delay of three months as the incident is of 14-6-2012 and the test identification parade has been conducted on 10-9-2012 and there is no explanation for delay of three months in conducting the said parade. Furthermore, in the said TI parade, appellant Jitendra Kumar (A-1) has been identified by Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1), whereas in paras 7 & 12 of his testimony, she has clearly stated that she knew appellant Jitendra Kumar (A-1) as he used to come to meet Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) in their house, as such, the TI parade allegedly held is of no use and moreover, from the possession of Jitendra Kumar (A-1) iron rod, club and clothes have been seized vide Ex.P-14, but same were not subjected to chemical analysis and report was not obtained, therefore, it would not connect A-1 with the offence in question. The court statement of Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) implicating A-1 is not reliable and it suffers from major contradictions and vital omissions, as such, conviction of A-1 deserves to be set aside. Similarly, from the possession of appellant Arun Kumar (A-3), his clothes and wooden club have been seized, but the same were not subjected to chemical examination and therefore they could not be connected with the offence and as such, he could not be convicted for the aforesaid offences.

Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for appellants Jayanand Sahu (A-2) & Nand Kumar @ Nandu (A-4) in Cr.A.No.523/2014, would submit that from appellant Jayanand Sahu (A-2) clothes and an unnumbered motorbike belonging to him have been seized vide Ex.P-16 and wooden club has been seized vide Ex.P-17, but again, the said seized articles were not subjected to chemical analysis and therefore conviction of A-2 and also the conviction of Nandkumar @ Nandu (A-4) are not sustainable particularly when they have not been identified in the test identification parade and even Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) has not named these two appellants – Jayanand Sahu (A-2) & Nandkumar @ Nandu (A-4) in her statement before the Court and as such, conviction of these two appellants deserve to be set aside.

Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for appellant Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5), would submit that mobile has been seized from the possession of Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) and call details have been marked as Ex.P-52, but it has not been established that the said call details have been issued under the seal and signature of the service providing company and it has not been proved in accordance with law.

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellants have rightly been convicted and furthermore, in view of the statements of Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1), Loknath (PW-2), Preetam Kumar Soni (PW-6), Pradeep Kumar Banjare (PW-8), Dinesh Kumar Soni (PW-14) & A.K. Uraon (PW-18), who has proved the test identification parade, the appeals deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

The first question is, whether the death of deceased Gopichand & Jagbai was homicidal in nature which the trial Court has answered in affirmative relying upon the postmortem reports Exs.P-45 & P-46 proved by Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-19) which in our considered opinion is the correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding and hold that death of Gopichand & Jagbai was homicidal in nature.

Now, the question would be, whether the trial Court is justified in holding the appellants to be the authors of the crime?

Admittedly, present is not the case of direct evidence and case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence which the trial Court has found established the five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and which have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 in paragraph 153 as under: -

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made:

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

The trial Court has firstly found the case of the prosecution proved on the basis of the statement made by Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) before the Court and furthermore, on the basis of the test identification parade conducted by A.K. Uraon (PW-18) – Executive Magistrate, who has proved the TI parade Ex.P-5 by which Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) has identified Jitendra Kumar (A-1) as accused of the offence. The trial Court has further held that motive of offence is proved as Jitendra Kumar (A-1) & Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) both had love affair which was being objected by the deceased persons – Gopichand & Jagbai and since they were objecting, in order to eliminate them, A-1 & A-5 have conspired together and for which A-1 has taken an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from Ramavtar Soni (PW-20) and moreover, the weapons recovered from Jitendra Kumar (A-1) & Arun Kumar (A-3) – iron rod & club were used in the commission of offence and unnumbered motorcycle was also used by Jayanand (A-3) and some cash amount has been seized from Nandkumar @ Nandu (A-4). As such, the appellants are authors of the crime. By recording the aforesaid finding, the appellants have been convicted.

We shall consider the correctness of the aforesaid finding to find out whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

Motive

It is the case of the prosecution that husband of Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) namely, Bhushan Soni went missing on 26-6-2011 and in order to trace her husband, Jitendra Kumar (A-1), who is a police constable, used to come to the house of deceased Gopichand & Jagbai, who were father-in-law & mother-in-law, respectively, of Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) being father & mother of the missing person, and in course of that, even Jitendra Kumar (A-1) has developed love affair with Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) which was being objected by both the deceased persons by which A-1 & A-5 were unhappy and even before one month prior to the date of offence, A-5 had left the matrimonial home and staying with her parents at Village Kharkena. Apart from that, after the husband of A-5 went missing, deceased Gopichand & Jagbai and Preetam Kumar Soni (PW-6) started alienating the joint land held by Gopichand and his two sons Bhushan Soni – husband of A-5 & Preetam Kumar Soni (PW-6), that was also one of the motives attributed by the prosecution. It has been contended by learned counsel for A-1 & A-3 that motive must be proximate and immediate, long interval has elapsed from the date of incident and he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10 SCC 733 in which it has been held that without any further material to show any proximate and immediate motive for the crime, it would be difficult to accept the cited motive, to support the conviction.

In the instant case, the fact remains that after the husband of A-5 went missing, A-1 developed intimacy with A-5 and that was the obvious reason for unhappiness of the two deceased persons, who were father-in-law and mother-in-law of A-5 being parents of her husband i.e. the missing person, and obviously in the present society, this type of relationship is not liked and that is the reason which disturbed A-5 to left her matrimonial home and to stay with her parents on the date of offence. Preetam Kumar Soni (PW-6), son of the deceased persons, has also stated that some of the joint lands were being sold by them. As such, the finding of the trial Court that motive stands established cannot be accepted. However, the fact remains that motive of an offence may be an important circumstance, but that cannot be made basis for conviction. This issue is held accordingly.

Test Identification Parade

The date of incident is 14-6-2012 and the TI parade has been conducted on 10-9-2012 in presence of A.K. Uraon (PW-18) – Executive Magistrate who has proved the test identification proceeding Ex.P-5 by which Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) – another daughter-in-law of the deceased persons, has identified Jitendra Kumar (A-1) to be the assailant. Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) has been subjected to cross-examination, however, on her own, in her examination-in-chief, in para 7, she has clearly stated that A-5 had love affair with A-1 and A-5 is not allowed by the deceased persons to move with A-1 and A-1 came to their house and sought apology that he will not repeat the said act in future. Apart from this, in para 16 of her statement before the Court, in cross-examination, she has clearly admitted that she knew A-1 prior to the date of offence.

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sheikh Sintha Madhar alias Jaffer alias Sintha and others v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2016) 11 SCC 265 has clearly held that test identification parade does not hold much value when the identity of the accused is already known to the witness and this proposition of law has been recently followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu Cr.A.No.1741 of 2010, decided on 16-3-2023.

In that view of the matter, this being the legal position, since Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) did know A-1 prior to the date of offence as A-1 used to visit the house of PW-1 & A-5 and considering the candid admission of PW-1 before the Court in paras 7, 11 & 16 of her evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that A-1 has been identified by PW-1 in the test identification parade as one of the assailants. We hereby reject the evidence of PW-1 proved by A.K. Uraon (PW-18) for also the additional fact that there is no reason in the inordinate delay in conducting the test identification parade, as the date of incident is 14-6-2012 and the TI Parade was admittedly conducted on 10-9-2012 with no valid and reasonable explanation put forth and brought out by the prosecution on record.

Testimony of Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1)

The trial Court has also relied upon the testimony of Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1), who had stated before the Court that A-1 along with other accused/appellants was assaulting her mother-in-law Jagbai, then upon her asking, the person had said, “humlog hai” (we are here) and thereafter, she heard the noise of vehicle and when she came out, she saw that some people ran away and thereafter, she noticed the bodies of her father-in-law & mother-in-law lying on bed in a pool of blood whereupon she screamed for help, then neighbours and other persons came and Gopichand was escorted to hospital, whereas Jagbai was already died on the spot. In order to prove the contradiction, she has been cross-examined with reference to her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC which is Ex.D-1. In Section 161 statement Ex.D-1, from A to A portion, she has stated that her mother-in-law has been murdered by gun shot injury and her father-in-law has also been murdered by gun shot injury. Similarly, from B to B portion, she has stated that some unknown assailants have caused murder by gun shot injury and from C to C portion, she has stated on suspicion that it has been done by A-5 Smt. Manisha who had love affair with A-1. When she was confronted to her statement made in portions A to A, B to B and C to C, before the Court in her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that she has not stated anything like A to A, B to B and C to C to the police, she has stated about A-1 and other three accused persons i.e. A-2 to A-4 that she has seen them in her house running away from her house, but if it is not mentioned in her statement, she cannot state the reason. The attention of investigating officer Anandram (PW-22) has been invited towards the aforesaid statement of Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) especially towards A to A, B to B and C to C portions and also towards para 11 of her evidence to which Anandram (PW-22) I.O. has clearly stated that PW-1 has not stated the name of A-1 and clearly stated that she has given the statement Ex.D-1 – B to B portion and C to C portion.

In view of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of V.K. Mishra and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another (2015) 9 SCC 588, witnesses Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) and investigating officer Anandram (PW-22) have been confronted with statement and questioned about it and as such, the statement of Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) suffers from material contradictions and vital omissions. It is held so accordingly.

Now, the next piece of evidence the trial Court has relied upon is, pursuant to the memorandum statement (Ex.P-13) of Jitendra Kumar (A-1), iron rod & club were seized vide Ex.P-14 and from Jayanand Sahu (A-2) & Arun Kumar (A-3), wooden clubs have been seized vide Exs.P-17 & P-20, respectively. The said seized weapons were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but the report thereof has not been brought on record by the prosecution for reasons well known to it.

In the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another (2019) 7 SCC 781, it has clearly been held that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood, and observed in paragraphs 23 & 24 as under: -

“23. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood. The court will have to come to the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match.

In the instant case, then, we could have placed some reliance on the recovery, had the prosecution at least proved that the blood was of human origin. As observed supra, while discussing the evidence of PWs 9 and 16, the prosecution has tried to concoct the case from stage to stage. Hence, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of recovery of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.”

In the instant case, though all the seized articles were subjected to chemical examination, but no FSL report was brought on record by the prosecution and no blood much less human blood has been found on the said articles. As such, recovery is of no use. Even otherwise, mere recovery itself is a weak piece of evidence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 17 SCC 273 in which it has been held that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon.

Apart from this, from the possession of Jitendra Kumar (A-1), Jayanand Sahu (A-2) & Arun Kumar (A-3), clothes which they wore at the time of offence have been seized and an unnumbered motorbike has also been seized from Jayanand Sahu (A-2), but mere seizure of clothes, on which no blood has been found, would not strengthen the case of the prosecution in absence of chemical examiner’s report holding them to be stained with human blood. Even the recovered unnumbered sold motorbike belongs to A-2, it has not been proved by the prosecution that it was owned by Gopichand & Jagbai – deceased persons, therefore, it would also not connect the appellant (A-2) with the offence in question.

Rs. 2,000/- has been recovered from Nandkumar @ Nandu (A-4), but it could not be established that it was the same amount which was given to him in furtherance of commission of offence, if any. Thus, it cannot be said that the seized amount recovered from the possession of the present appellant was the amount alleged to be used as a token amount for commission of offence.

Even otherwise, in the FIR Ex.P-1 and in the morgue intimations of deceased – Gopichand & Jagbai Exs.P-2 & P-6, assailants have not been named, they are unnamed. Furthermore, the prosecution ought to have conducted the test identification parade promptly to identify the assailants, as, admittedly, pursuant to the FIR and morgue intimations, none of the appellants herein were named therein. In that view of the matter, the prosecution was obliged to conduct the TI Parade immediately to identify the assailants, however, the TI parade was conducted with a delay of 3 months in which Smt. Rajshri Soni (PW-1) has identified only one accused i.e. Jitendra Kumar (A-1), as she already knew A-1 because he has visiting terms with their family and he used to come to meet Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5).

The call details of the mobile phone of Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) have been brought on record as Ex.P-52. A careful perusal of the call details Ex.P-52 would show that a printout has been taken from the computer centre of a mobile company, but it has not been certified by the responsible officer of the service providing company and even it has not been signed by any of the authorised / certifying officer of the said company. In that view of the matter, call details Ex.P-52 is of no use, more particularly when the same was only proved by investigating officer Anandram (PW-22) and it has not been proved in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has failed to prove the five golden principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

Consequently, the three criminal appeals preferred by the five appellants herein are allowed. Conviction and sentences imposed upon them by judgment dated 31-3-2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.193/2012 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. Jitendra Kumar (A-1) is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Jayanand Sahu (A-2), Arun Kumar (A-3), Nand Kumar @ Nandu (A-4) & Smt. Manisha @ Uttara Bai (A-5) are already on bail. They need not surrender.

However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437A of the CrPC.