CHATRU ALIAS CHATRUBHUJA BHUE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a perusal of the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, we find, for the reasons to follow, that the order of conviction recorded against the appellant under S.302 of the Penal Code sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of the Juedhar Bagarthi (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'deceased') at village Deng in the district of Bolangir based on some items of circumstantial evidence which, taken by themselves, would not lead to a conclusion of guilt and taken together, would not manacle the appellant inescapably, cannot be allowed to stand.

(2.) It is clear from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 8), who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, that his death was homicidal in nature. There is no direct evidence of the actual assault on the deceased by the appellant. The case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence which, in order to be made the basis of conviction, must unerringly lead to but one conclusion, viz., the guilt of the accused. The five principles relating to the appreciation of circumstantial evidence enunciated in AIR 1984 SC 1622 :(1984 Cri LJ 1738) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra may be borne in mind in a case depending on circumstantial evidence.

(3.) The prosecution has not established any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. Absence of proof of motive would put the Court on its guard to critically examine the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused.