SANKAR ACHARYYA,J. - (1.) Against the same judgment of conviction and sentence all these three appeals have been preferred by the appellants. Said judgment (hereinafter called as impugned judgment) of conviction of all the four appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and also conviction of the three appellants of CRA 458 of 2009 and CRA 468 of 2009 under Section 201/34, I.P.C. was passed on 21.03.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 4 (February)/07 arising out of Sessions Case No. 79 of 2006. On 23.03.2009 all the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for one year individually for the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and simultaneously, the appellants of CRA 458 of 2009 and CRA 468 of 2009 were further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 201/34, I.P.C. with an order that the punishment of imprisonment of the convicts would run concurrently.
(2.) This is a case of blind murder having no eye -witness of the alleged incident of murder. The case was initiated at Margram Police Station on 05.04.2006 at 11:45 hours receiving a written information of the informant Kartick Chandra Mandal who complained that his brother Ashok Kumar Mandal was murdered in a hut of submersible pump on the bank of a tank namely 'Sarsa Pukur' on the northern portion of village Podda by unknown miscreants in the night of 04.04.2006 and 05.04.2006. Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellants under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) In the trial Court, a charge under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. was framed against all the four appellants of these three appeals. A separate charge under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. was also framed against the appellants Netai Das, Badam Sheikh @ Jinarul and Kashinath Mal. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also adduced some documents as exhibits during trial. Accused appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.). They did not adduce any evidence. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge in the trial Court convicted and sentenced to the accused persons and thereafter challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence these three appeals have been filed.
(3.) The determining question in these three appeals is that whether the prosecution was successful in proving the case which is based on circumstantial evidence and whether the impugned judgment is liable to be sustained or set aside. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, the burden of the prosecution is to prove a complete chain of circumstances against accused to bring home a charge of penal offence. Such chain of circumstances must speak that the accused and none else is the author of alleged crime to find an accused guilty in a criminal trial. Learned counsels argued on behalf of the appellants submitted that the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove circumstances beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants and so the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants is bad in law. It has been claimed that learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously found the accused appellants guilty of the charges although the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against them. ;