- (1.) The appellants Sudhir Das, Ashok Das and Sagari Das were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract, 4th Court, Raghunathpur, Purulia on a charge that they committed murder of one Jamini Kanta Das of their village and also caused disappearance of evidence of such offence punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the trial all three were found guilty of the offences they were charged with and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal.
(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 2nd June, 1988 at around 2.30 p.m. the victim Jamini Kanta Das, a postal peon left his house for his duty in a bicycle with postal papers. On the same day at about 5/5.30 p.m. a beheaded dead body of an unknown person was found in a paddy field near Hetpukuria Dam under Tetulhiti Kenktia Mouza after search the truncated head was found in a ditch at a distance of 150/250 yards away from the place where the said dead body was found. Subsequently the dead body was identified as that of Jamini Kanta Das, who after leaving home for his duty never returned. However, his bicycle and the wristwatch was found missing. The deceased Jamini Kanta Das had an extra-marital affair with the appellant Sagari Das, the wife of appellant Sudhir Das and a couple of months earlier on the Kali Puja day the appellants threatened Jamini with dire consequences over the said issue. After arrest at the behest of the appellant Sagari Das the wristwatch of the deceased and her bloodstained wearing apparels were allegedly recovered from their house and the offending weapon Axe was recovered from nearby pond and similarly at the instance of appellant Sudhir Das police recovered the bicycle of the deceased. The appellants according to the prosecution witnesses after their arrest also confess their guilt.
(3.) To establish the charge of the appellants prosecution entirely relied on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law in a case depends on circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to fully establish the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn and such circumstances must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The circumstances shall be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, be conclusive in nature and should be such so as to exclude all hypothesis but the one propose to be proved and there shall be nothing consistent with the innocence of the accused. In a case of this nature there is always danger nor it is legally permissible to proceed with surmises and conjecture.;