Korba, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lemru, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:26729-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2238 of 2023 Joni Minj S/o Late Jagsay Minj Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dokarmana, Police Station Lemru, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lemru, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 2352 of 2023 Pradeep Kumar Toppo S/o Maniram Toppo Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Village Dokarmana, P.S. Lemru, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Lehru, District Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant-Joni Minj in CRA No.2238/2023 For Appellant- Pradeep Kumar Toppo in CRA No.2352/2023 : : Mr.M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate Mr.Ashutosh Shukla, Advoacte For Respondent/State : Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, G.A. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.06.2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba in Sessions Case No.76/2021, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant-Joni Minj has preferred Criminal Appeal No.2238/2023 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba in Sessions Case No.76/2021, by which he has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for five days and RI for three years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for five days. 3. Appellant-Pradeep Kumar Toppo has preferred Criminal Appeal No.2352/2023 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba in Sessions Case No.76/2021, by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 201/34 of 3 the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for five days 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.04.2021 complainant Shambhu Bada gave information to Lemru Police Station that his elder sister Sushila Minj is married to Joni Minj of village Dokarmana. Today on 24.04.2021 at about 10 A.M. Roshan and Manoj, residents of village Dokarmana came to his house and told him that his elder sister Sushila Minj died by hanging herself in the hilly forest behind her house. Then he went with his uncle Chhotelal, his mother Manajo and his father Nan Say and saw that his elder sister was hanging from Char tree in the jungle hill behind the house and had died. Deceased Sushila Minj is hanging from Char tree with a rope. His brother-in-law Jony Minj often used to beat his sister Sushila under the influence of alcohol. He had beaten her last night also after drinking alcohol. Injury marks are visible on Sushila Minj’s body, stomach, back, face and legs. This morning, the villagers asked Joni Minj to go to the police station to report the incident, but he did not go to the police station. He is roaming around the village after drinking alcohol. He suspects that his brother-in-law Joni Minj killed his sister Sushila Minz and hung her. On oral information of complainant Shabhu Bada, Sub-Inspector Krishna Sahu registered the case in Lemru Police Station and went to the scene of incident and prepared a photograph of deceased 4 Sushila Minj’s body, which was found hanging with the help of rope in a sitting posture on the ground. He prepared a photograph of the body by taking it from his mobile phone. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-4. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer vide Exs.P-6 and P-7. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-8. Memorandum statements of appellants-Pradeep Toppo and Joni Minj were recorded vide Exs.P-13 and P-14. Spot recreation map was prepared vide Ex.P-15. Spot recreation panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-16. T-shirt and stick were recovered from appellant Joni Minj vide Ex.P-17. Full shirt and lungi were recovered from appellant Pradeep Toppo vide Ex.P-18. Broken bangles were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-19. One button was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-20. Appellant Joni Minj was arrested on 25.04.2021 vide arrest memo Ex.P-21. Appellant Pradeep Toppo was arrested on 25.04.2021 vide arrest memo Ex.P-22. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Center, Korba, where Dr.T.Singh (PW-11) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P- 24 and found following injuries:- “1. Round shaped ligature mark that on neck circumference from below left mastoid to right mastoid with 24 c.m. width and irregular in front 3 c.m. left 2.5 c.m. right 1.5 c.m. and friction sign that caused by rope like object which is fatal in nature. 5 2. Abrasion multiple and various size at different parts of body like back below both shoulders around right eye and right knee caused by hard and rough object. Simple in nature. 3. Lacerated wound on chin 1½ x 1 c.m. caused by hard and blunt object. Simple in nature. 4. Wearing clothes petticoat brown colour in with blood little spot that separately. 4. Hanging mark cotton rope (gerwa) both are wrapped in a paper with duly sealed signed and handed to bearer on same day. ” The doctor has opined that cause of death is asphyxia due to
Legal Reasoning
strangulation seems to be homicidal in nature. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-30. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-36), human blood was found on t-shirt (Article A) seized from appellant Joni Minj, lungi (Article E) seized from appellant Pradeep Toppo and petticoat (Article I) of the deceased. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Korba. The accused / appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents Exs.P-1 to P- 36. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. 6 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove, against which, these criminal appeals have been preferred. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for appellant in CRA No.2238/2023 submits that learned trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilt for offence under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC that of having subjected to assault the deceased by way of hand and fist and strangulated her neck, so that she died. He further submits that learned trial Court relied on the testimony of memorandum and seizure witness, were as they were stated that they had put signature in the paper without but they do not know what the accused person were stated. The trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to bring out the motive in the entire prosecution case which is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain which has been established by investigation agency is totally missing, not a signal chain is concerned with each other. He also submits that learned trial Court failed to consider that the article which has been sent for FSL examination in which no definite opinion has come regarding the human blood nor blood group has been matched and the investigating agency initially having no evidence regarding the commission of offence, hence, to complete the investigation they have falsely roped the present appellant in the instant case. As such, criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant Joni Minj 7 deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the present appellant deserves to be set aside. 9. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for appellant Pradeep Kumar Toppo in CRA No.2352/2023 submits that the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for five days and he has already been released after serving the jail sentence imposed upon him. 10. On the other hand, Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that conviction of the appellants / accused is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution during investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in which they have categorically deposed in their statements regarding conduct and commission of offence by the accused / appellant, which is concurrent evidence against the accused / appellants and thus, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants. Therefore, the instant appeals deserve to be dismissed. He further submits that learned trial Court has come to the conclusion regarding involvement of the accused / appellants in the crime in question under the concluding paras of the judgment in which learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the accused / appellants, which connect them with the instant crime 8 and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeals deserve to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Sushila Minj was homicidal in nature, which the trial Court has recorded to be homicidal in nature based upon testimony of Dr. T. Singh (PW-11), who has conducted postmortem and submitted report vide Ex.P-24, in which he has clearly opined that cause of death is asphyxia to strangulation and seems to be homicidal in nature. In view of medical evidence available on record, finding recorded by the trial Court that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature is a binding based on evidence available on record. We hereby affirm the said finding. 13. The question for consideration is whether appellant-John Minj is the author of the crime, which the trial Court has answered in affirmative relying upon the circumstantial evidence available on record. It is house murder, which the appellant was required to offer explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which he has failed to offer and consequently, finding other 9 circumstance established, proceeded to convict him for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 14. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 15. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of Indrani Sahu took place in the house of the appellant. 16. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused was required to give plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances, in which, the deceased was found dead in his house. Where an offence like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. 17. In view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot keep away by simply keeping quite and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. 10 18. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Supreme Court whilst applying provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observed in para 14 reads as under: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 19. On the interpretation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer 11 reported in AIR 1956 SC 404 in paragraph 9 it was observed by the Supreme Court thus: "9. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not." 20. In the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382, the Supreme Court has observed in paras 31 to 33 as under: “31. The prestine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 12 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 21. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in 2021 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other 13 facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 22. Babulal (PW-1) (son of appellant Joni Minj and deceased Sushila has admitted in para 6 of his evidence that two days before the police took his statement, his uncle Pradeep and his aunt had come to their house and on that day his uncle Pradeep, his aunt, his mother Sushila and his father appellant Joni had consumed alcohol at their house. In para 7, he has admitted that after consuming alcohol his mother Sushila was abusing his father appellant Joni. He has admitted that while his mother was abusing his father appellant, his father Joni assaulted his mother Sushila with stick and kicked her. 23. Seema Minj (PW-4), (daughter of deceased Sushila and appellant Johi Minj) has stated that she does not remember the day and date of the incident, but the incident took place during the last summer. On the first day of the incident, her mother Sushila, her father appellant Joni Minj, her maternal uncle appellant Pradeep 14 and her material aunt Pushpa came to their house and drank alcohol. Meanwhile, her father appellant Joni Minj abused her mother due to which there was a fight and scuffle between them. Her father kicked her mother and then her mother ran away. Then they brought back and they slept together outside at night. Then her maternal uncle appellant Pradeep came and her father appellant Joni Minj and appellant Pradeep drank alcohol again. Her maternal uncle appellant Pradeep Minj was coming to their house again and again and was roaming outside. Then they came inside the house. In para 2 of her evidence, she has stated that when she woke up in the morning, her mother was dead and a rope was tied around her neck and she was hung from a tree. Then the villagers came and went to the place where her mother was hanged and saw that her mother was wearing a blouse and petticoat. There were marks of injury on her back caused by hitting a stick. There were marks of injury on other parts of her mother’s body as well. The rope with which the noose was made around her mother’s neck was the rope from their house with which they used to tie the cow. 24. It is to be remembered here that homicidal nature of death need not always be proved through direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of injuries noticed on the dead body. The instant case is about the death of a wife committed by the husband within four walls of the house. When the assailant is the husband, it is difficult indeed to get direct 15 evidence on the nature of injuries. It is thus concluded that the deceased died homicidal nature of death. 25. In the present case, the deceased was found dead in her house and at that time, the appellant and the deceased were present in the house and as per the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of incident and he was present elsewhere is on the appellant, which he admittedly failed to prove in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. 26. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 27. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 28. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests 16 upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 29. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 30. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to 17 be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 31. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (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; 18 (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.” 32. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 33. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful 19 portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 34. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstantial evidence against the appellants:- (i) As per FSL report (Ex.P-36), human blood was found on Article A (t-shirt) seized from appellant Joni Minj, Article E (lungi) seized from appellant Pradeep Toppo and Article I (petticoat) of the deceased. (ii) Dr.T.Singh (PW-11) who conducted postmortem has opined that cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation and seems to be homicidal in nature. 20 35. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that appellant-Joni Minj are author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P-36) of Dr.T. Singh(PW-11) who conducted autopsy. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased Sushila was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 36. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except 21 the one to be proved. It has been held that 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 37. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 38. The prosecution has also proved that the appellant had a dispute with his wife. Satisfactory evidence has been presented on record by the prosecution to conclude that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. There is no explanation as to how t-shirt and lungi of the appellants, which were seized at their instances after being presented by by them, had human blood on them. 39. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law and taking into the facts in totality and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the appellants, which connect them with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its 22 case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 40.
Decision
In the result, both the appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 41. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant-Joni Minj is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 42. However, appellant-Pradeep Kumar Toppo has been convicted for offence under Section 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for five days and he has already been released after serving the jail sentence upon upon him. 43. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant Joni Minj is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra