High Court · 2008
Case Details
Crl.A. 33/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Session Case No.77 (JJ) 2010 convicting accused/appellant Shri Prashanta Dutta of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in in Shri ed this default, R.I for another 3 months. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, 2. Prasanta Dutta, here-in-after referred to as the accused person, preferr appeal citing several infirmities in judgment, impugned. 3. The facts which have emerged from the judgment, under challenge, brief, are that on the night intervening 7th and 9th October 2008, one A bhijit Baruah, nephew of Shri Ajay Baruah, resident of Kenduguri, Bamungaon, Jo was kidnapped by a group of miscreants from a place, quite close to the rhat Puja Pandal, Kenduguri. It was stated that Abhijit Baruah was taken away in a n auto rickshaw, named (cid:28)Parinita (cid:29). However, body of said Abhijit Baruah was fou nd on the N.H. 37 near Padumoni village with several cut wounds thereon. 4. An FIR to that effect being lodged with O/C Jorhat Police Statio n on 9th October, 2008, Police registered a case vide Jorhat P.S Case No 535/2008 under Section 365/302/34 IPC and ordered one Sri. Biswajit Gogoi, S.I up investigation. Being so entrusted with the investigat of police to take ion, Sri Gogoi visited the place where the dead body was found, prepared a conducted an inquest on the dead body, sent the same to sketch map thereof, hospital for post mortem examination, arrested the accused person during t investigation, did other needful and on conclusion of investigat he course of ion, Sri Gogoi submitted a charge-sheet under Section 364/302 IPC against the a ccused person and sent him to the court to stand his trial. The learned Magistrate, before whom charge sheet was so laid, 5. committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Jorhat since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. On receipt of the case on commitment, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat framed charges under section 364/302 IPC and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesse including the Medical Officer and the I/O. Statement of the accused pers s on Section 313 Cr. P.C was recorded. His plea was of denial. He, ho under wever, declined to adduce any evidence of his own. The learned Sessions Judge, conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learne on counsel for the parties, while acquitting the accused of offence u/s 364 d him guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted him the sentenced him as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been a IPC, held re-under and ssailed in the present appeal. 7. ed that
Legal Reasoning
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumst ances concerned ’must or should’ and not ’may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ’may be proved’ and (cid:28)must be or s hould be proved (cid:29) as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State o f Maharastra where the following observations were made : [ SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC(Crl.) p. 1047) Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be an guilty before a court can convict and the mental distanc d not merely may be e between ’may be’ and ’must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) To the facts so established should be consisten t only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they sho uld 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 prove d, and (5) There must be a claim of evidence so complete as not to leave a ny reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the acc used and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused (cid:29). 13. Before proceed further, we find it necessary to have a brief rev iew of evidence on record and the evidence of the Doctor is first taken up for consideration. The Doctor who performed autopsy on the body of the deceased at Jorhat Civil Hospital on 9.10.2008 was one Dr. Buddha Deb Dutta. He was examined as PW.7. According to him, on examining the body of one Abhijit Baruah he found the following:- A healthy male dead body. Rigor mortis present. One lacerated wound on left parietal region of scalp. Bleeding present. Laceration of left ear with separation into three pieces and external la Black eyes both present. Bleeding from nose present. One lacerated wound with bleeding (2 (cid:29)x1/2 (cid:29)x ‰ (cid:29)) present over left fronta INJURIES: 1. 2. 3. l region of scalp. 4. ceration on left mastoid region with bleeding. Size - 2 (cid:29)x1/2 (cid:29)x ‰ (cid:29). 5. Size - 3 (cid:29)x1/2 (cid:29)x ‰ (cid:29). 6. 1/2 (cid:29)x 1/4 (cid:29). All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. The doctor opined that dead of the deceased was due to coma as result of injurie s sustained. The doctor stated that Exhibit-5 (post-mortem report) was prepared by him and Ex hibit-5 (1) is his signature in the aforesaid post-mortem report. During his cross-examination, the doctor disclosed that those injuries might be caused due to accident. One lacerated wound over right parietal region with bleeding. Size - 2 (cid:29)x 14. hu who as of he along l. While they and requested e accused and nt to such 15. So situated, let us consider the testimony of one Sri. Manjit Sa examined as PW 3. Undoubtedly, the star campaigner from the side prosecution is said Manjit Sahu. According to him, on the fateful night, with the accused was enjoying Durga Puja at Kenduguri Puja Pande were so enjoying Puja, the deceased Abhijit Baruah came to them to give him a cigarette. On being so requested, he along with th the deceased went to nearby shop to purchase cigarettes. They we place in the auto rickshaw of the accused person. On their arrival at such place, they found the shop closed. Havi ng found the shop closed, they retreated there-from and started proceedin g towards their houses. As soon as they reached a place in front of his house, the accused and the deceased dropped him down there. After dropping him on the r oad in front of his house, the accused and the deceased left such place. Next da y, in the morning, at about 10:00 a.m., he came to know that Abhijit was no more . In that connection, he had rendered a statement before the Magistrate during t course of investigation which he proved as Ext 3. In cross examination, he he has admitted that he did not know how Abhijit met his death. PW 2 is Shri Manto Dutta@ Bhabesh. According to him, the decease 16. d Abhijit @ Babu died in 2008. On the Navami night of (Durga Puja), 2008, he was at his hotel which was situated at N.H 37 Jorhat. At about 2/2.30 a.m., he saw the deceased and Manjit Sahu sitting in an auto rickshaw. Since it was q at night, he advised them to go home. They paid heed to his advi uite late shop. Next day, in the morning, he heard hue and cry com ce and left the house of one of the relatives of the deceased Abhijit. ing out from the 17. In that during the On making an enquiry, he came to know that Abhijit was no more. connection, he also rendered the statement before the Magistrate course of investigation which he proved Ext.2. In his cross exam stated that when he met deceased in his hotel on the nig a bike in front of his hotel. He found both the the auto-rickshaw but he did not know wh Manjit Sahu was sitting on that fateful ination, he has ht aforesaid, there was deceased and Manjit Sahu inside o owned the auto rickshaw in which night. to 18. The informant who lodged the FIR was examined as PW1. According him, the incident in question occurred on the night of Dusshami 2008. On 2008, when he was in his shop, one Rajib Baruah informed him ove a person was lying dead on the road at Padumoni village. Being s 9th Oct r phone that o informed, he came to such place aforesaid and found his nephew Abhijit lying therefore, lodged an FIR which he proved as Ext 1. He wa dead there. He, s, however, declared hostile. 19. PW-5, Sri Dhurbajit Baruah. He is found saying that one day, he information that the dead body of Abhijit Baruah was lying at th Jorhat. Being so, informed, he went to such place and saw the po an inquest on the body of the deceased. He proved the in got the e A.T. Road lice conducting quest report as Exhibit- 4. 21. ted that on e 008. hearsay of the matter 20. PW-4 is also witness to the inquest, conducted on the body of th deceased at the place where the dead body was found on 9th of October, 2 He proved the inquest report as Ext. 4. PW-6, Sri Ranjit Barthakur is a witness and did not divulge any material information in respect under PW-8, Sri Biswajit Gogoi is the I.O. In his evidence, he has sta receipt of telephonic information from A.S.I. Manoram Nath, Shri the I/C, the Bhogdoimukh Police Out-Post, entered such i General Diary (in short G.D.) and directed him to visit 8 visited the place where the dead body was foun over the dead body and prepared a report in that connection which he proved as Ext-4. He then sent the dead body to Jorhat Civi examination and also prepared the sketch map of Shyamal Bania, nformation in the the spot. Accordingly, PW- d lying, conducted an inquest scrutiny. l Hospital for post-mortem the place of occurrence. 22. In the meantime, an FIR was lodged by Sri Ajay Baruah which was Jorhat P.S. for registration of a case and accordingly Jorhat P. sent to 535/2008 u/s. 365/302/34 of IPC was registered. After the regis S. Case No. tration of the case, the investigation was formally entrusted upon him. During investigation, he seized an auto-rickshaw named (cid:28)Parinita (cid:29) from the course of accused person on the strength of seizure-list which was proved the father of the conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge she as Exihibit-6. On et against the accused person. 23. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the dead body was found near National Highway at Padumoni area and that he interrogated Sri Manj Sahu but he was not made an accused in the case under consideration. He it denied the suggestion that the deceased met his death due to accident. The suggestion that the auto-rickshaw was seized from the house of the accused person, and that too, from his father, was admitted by the PW.8. Above being the evidence on record, it is to be seen how far suc 24. evidence makes out the allegation, brought against the accused person. T learned trial court, we find, concluded that the prosecution has success proved certain circumstances and such circumstances together with the h he fully admission which the accused made while being examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C very firmly established that the accused, and none else, was the author of the crime under scrutiny. The circumstances, referred to the above, are: - i) in the company of the accused at about 2/2:30 p.m. on the night of 08.10.2008. ii) next morning. iii) Auto rickshaw of the accused was seized by police on 09.10.2008 from his The accused was seen with the deceased was seen alive for the last time His dead body was found on the N.H- 37 near Padumani at about 7:00 a.m. house. It was seized from the father of the accused person. The accused did not go to the Police Station soon thereafter to enquire iv) v) as to why his auto was seized by Police. vi) vii) sed on the night in question. v) The auto-rickshaw aforesaid was owned by the accused. He surrendered before the court only on 07.11.2008. The auto-rickshaw, named Parinita, was used by the accused and the decea Now the question is whether on the materials available on record 25. prosecution could be said to have proved the hypothesis which is known a , the s (cid:28)the last seen theory (cid:29) and if so, whether such circumstances, aforesaid, toge his alleged inability to explain his conduct 2/2.30 a.m. on the ther with night of 8th October, 2008 till the discovery of body of the deceased on the morning of 9th October, 2008 conclusively prove that accused and none else comm itted the murder of deceased as concluded by the learned trial Court. 26. In order to get answers to those queries, we need to know if the prosecution could actually establish the hypothesis which is commonly ca (cid:29)last seen theory’’ over which learned trial Court as well as pr placed enormous importance in recording a verdict of guilt again lled as osecution has st the accused person. 27. tion in exception to Since the FIR sets the law in motion, it occupies a pivotal posi shaping the prosecution case. The case under consideration is no such a rule. In the instant case, the FIR reveals that on the fa teful night at about 2:00 a.m. some unknown miscreants forcibly lifted a dece ased from Puja Pandal, Kenduguri, Jorhat. However, his dead body with various c ut marks thereon was found on the road near Padumoni village next day in the morning. 28. ete goby hile a totally Unfortunately, the story, told in the FIR has been given a compl by PW-3, the star campaigner from the prosecuting side, since, w propagating the prosecution case before the Court of law, he introduced different story about the disappearance of Abhijit Baruah on the In his evidence, PW-3 is found saying that on the night gossiping over some with the accused near Puja P deceased came there and requested them to give him a cig not have cigarettes, all of them went to nearby shop but in question, when he was andal, Kenduguri, the arette. As they did night aforesaid. only to find such shop closed. 29. Once they found the shop closed, they made a retreat there-from in the auto-rickshaw of the accused person. When they arrived at a place near t he house of the PW-3, the accused and the deceased dropped him down on the road in front of his house. After dropping the PW-3, the other two persons left such place. Thus, PW-3 not only replaced the story, incorporated in the FIR but also gives a completely new twist to the case vis-à-vis disappearance of it deceased on the night of 8th October, 2008. 30. st time in ht of 8th The prosecution case that the deceased was seen alive for the la the company of accused person on or about 2/2:30 a.m. on the nig October, 2008 suffers serious setback for other reasons as well. important prosecution witness, is also found saying that on the he found the accused and Manjit sitting in an auto-ricks Having seen them sitting at such place at dead o go home. On the advice, all of them left night in question, haw in front of his hotel. f the night, he advised them to PW-2, other such place hurriedly. 31. e, it he nd PW ad Therefore, the testimony, so rendered by PW 2, adds one more dim ension to the prosecution case and it instead of strengthening the case makes i t more and more doubtful since the story, told by the PW 2 before the court har matches the story, recorded in the FIR. It is also not in conformity wit dly h the story, told by PW 3 before the court during trial. Such an account, ren dered by PW 2, makes an already twisted prosecution case more and more messy. 32. The last seen theory receives more and more setback and this tim comes from the statement of the PW2 and PW3 which they rendered before t Magistrate during the course of investigation. Such statements of PW 2 a 3 were proved as Ext 2 and Ext. 3 respectively. In his statement, PW 2 h stated that on the night in question at about 1.30 a.m., Manjit and Babu deceased) came to his hotel and made a request to serve them wine. In hi statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C, PW-3 even went to the extent of saying that h smell of alcohol in the mouth of the deceased when he met him on 8th October, 2008. 33. These fundamentally different versions on a point as important a deceased having been seen alive for last time in the company of the accu person, on the night of the 8th October, 2008, make the entire prosecuti profoundly doubtful and these doubts increase manifolds since th FIR refused to own up the story, recorded therein. These s the sed on case e author of the s e found the night of (the revelations, now, nclusively establish that company of the accused require us to conclude that the prosecution could not co the deceased was seen alive for last time in the sometime before his death. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the prosecution 34. proved that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused per on or about 2:00 P.M on the night of 8th October, 2008, yet, it hardly m the allegation leveled against the accused person. To place reli seen theory, it needs to be shown that the time gap betw seen alive in the company of the accused person and his it must invariably rule out the role of any othe has son akes out ance on the last een the deceased last death was so small that r person except the accused in extinguishing the life of the deceased. rd moni at on the body d. Thus, one in the r less 5 Coming back to our case, we have found that the evidence on reco 35. reveals that the dead body of Abhijit was found on the N.H. 37 near Padu about 7: 00 A.M. In his report, the Doctor who conducted autopsy of the deceased did not specify the time of death of the decease may conclude that the gap between the deceaseds’ last seen alive company of the accused and his probable time of death was more o hours. 36. A gap of 5 hours, in the facts and circumstances of the case und consideration cannot be said to be a small duration in order to raise a irrefutable conclusion that the accused, and no one else, was the author crime in question, more so, when the incident in question occurr Navami night of Durga Puja when there are so many persons found localities throughout the night and when there i most of the to show that on such a night, the accuse evidence on record kept on moving from place to place in search of cigarett er n of the ed on the available in s undeniable d along with other es and wine. front point of 37. We may note here that the PW 2 noticed one more motor cycle in of the hotel when the boys aforesaid having parley at such place at that time. The evidence rendered by PW 2 makes it clear. Prosecution could not show that the said motor cycle was owned by any of the aforesaid pers the accused/the deceased/PW 3. Thus, the presence of one more pe ons, namely, group of the boys on the night in question cannot be ruled out. rson in that the prosecution case more and more suspicious. This only makes One more factor that deserves discussion here is that the doctor that the death of the deceased may be due to accident as well. W e have already found that on the night of 8th October, 2008, the deceased consu med alcohol. The statements, found recorded in Ext. 2 & Ext. 3 make such posi tion more than clear. Thus, the deceased’s meeting his death due to some vehicu the night aforesaid also cannot be ruled out. Such a fin lar accident on ding gets more weight due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the motiv e of the accused in killing the deceased. opines 38. 39. reasons The judgment of the trial court is found unsustainable for other as well. The learned trial court concluded that the accused coul d not explain how he conducted himself after he dropped the PW 3 on the ro house on the night of 8th October, 2008. Nor could he ex ad in front of his plain how the deceased got killed although he was with him till 2:00 A.M. on th note here that such a decision profoundly influe e aforesaid night. We may that the accused alone was the author of nced the trial court in concluding the crime under scrutiny. 40. But the finding of the trial court that the accused could not ex conduct between the periods aforesaid is not based on facts on r plain his ecord. On the perusal of the evidence on record, we have found that while bein g examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused informed the court that when they found closed, they returned there-from, dropped PW 3 on the road in fr where-from he along with the deceased proceeded further dropped the deceased near Salonjini School and after dro such place, he returned home. ont of his house and thereafter, he pping the deceased at the shop asons 41. more them one. They are :- Such explanation, however, cannot easily be brushed aside for re (a) On the night of 8th October, 2008, when the PW.3 and the acc used was gossiping on some matters at the Puja Pondal, Kenduguri, the deceased c ame to them and asked for cigarettes. Since they could not give him cigarettes, all of them left such place in order to procure cigarettes. Thus, the accused pe rson and PW.3 met the deceased at Puja Pondal at Kenduguri, not by design but by chance only. This strongly suggests that the accused cannot have any design to extinguish life of deceased on the night of 8th October, 2008 and as such, the a ccused seems to be as innocent as PW.3. (b) The evidence of witnesses, more particularly PW.2 and PW.3, reveals that on the Navami night of the Durga Puja in 2008, the accused, deceased and the PW.3, all moved from place to place in jovial mood and in a very friendly manner as we ll. The very friendly behavior of the accused person and his associates towards the deceased on the night of 8th October, 2008 is found to be totally mismatche d with the allegation made against the accused person. In above view of the matt er, it cannot be said that the accused did not explain his conduct after droppin g the deceased near Salojani School on the aforesaid night at about 2/2:30 a.m. 42. hat the out 2/2.30 prosecution ake out its case Cr.P.C. Such reliance is We have already found that the prosecution could not establish t deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused at ab a.m. on the night intervening 7th & 9th October, 2008. When the could not prove such a fundamental claim on its own, it cannot m with the aid of the statement of accused person u/s 313 not permissible. 43. In this context, we can peruse that decision of Allahabad High C case of Miss Hardevi Malkani -Versus- State And Anr., reported i ourt in the n AIR 1969 ALL 423. The relevant part is reproduced below :- (cid:28)21. Reliance has been placed on the case of Mohideen Abdul Kadir v. Emperor, (1 904) ILR 27 Mad 238. His Lordship the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court rel ying on an earlier decision in Basant Kumar Ghatak v. Queen Empress, (1903) ILR 26 Cal 49 took the view that a gap in the evidence of the prosecution cannot be filled by any statement made by the accused in his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am in respectful agreement with the view t aken in that case and I am of the opinion that even where a matter had been admi tted by the accused in his or her statement under section 342 Cr. P. C., the pro secution had to prove such facts, for want of proof of which, the prosecution mu st fail. I have, therefore, to examine the evidence on the record in this case i n order to find out if Ex. Ka. 2 has been proved according to law or not. (cid:29) 44. in the ) 3 SCC 408. Similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court of the country case of Banamali Samal-versus- State of Orissa reported in (1979 The relevant portion is reproduced below :- (cid:28)It would appear from the answers given by the appellant that he nowhere admitted that he gave stab blows to the deceased although he says that there wa s enmity between him and the deceased. In answer to the other questions, the acc used says that when the deceased fell down he left the place. He did not see if he was stabbed. In fact in a direct question that the accused himself had stabbe d the deceased and caused the fated injury, the appellant clearly denied this. I n this state of the evidence the High Court should not have convicted the appell ant on the basis of a statement of the accused, which never existed. The High Co urt further held that the evidence is corroborated by PWs 2 and 4. But this is n ot so. In the circumstances it is manifest that there is no legal evidence to sh ow that the appellant caused stab injury to the deceased. Mr. Desai appearing fo r the respondent was not in a position to support the judgment of the High Court . For these reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is se t aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Convic tion under Section 172 is also set aside. (cid:29) 45. Coming back to our case, we have already found that the learned court concluded that prosecution has proved its case and while doing so, placed huge reliance on the statement of the accused made u/s 313 Cr.P.C trial it . make out the ignoring blissfully the fact that the prosecution on its own could not charge, brought against the accused person. This is another reas on which s appeal. requires this court to set aside the judgment, impugned in thi ree er, 46. We have, now, found that evidence on record projects at least th hypothesis regarding the death of the deceased on the night of 8th Octob 2008. Those hypothesis are :- (i) The deceased might be killed by accused person or (ii) He might be killed by third person or (iii) He might have met his death due to vehicular accident. Since there are several possibilities regarding the death of the which are indicated above, it cannot be said that the pr out a charge, leveled against the accuse made down in respect of a cas deceased, osecution has not d person on satisfying the tests laid e based on circumstantial evidence. 47. In view of what we have discussed here-in-before and what have emerged there-from, we are of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out the charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, he deserves to be acquitted of offence u/s 302 IPC. 48. t of the 49.
Arguments
Mr. S.S.S Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitt the judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions case No. 77(JJ) of 2008 is unsustainable in law due to several serious infirmities. connection, it has been pointed out that though the learned tria In that l Court held that prosecution had proved that the deceased was last seen a live in the company of accused person at about 2/2.30 PM on the night in questi ignores the fact that the prosecution had rendered sever on, yet, it totally al stories totally contradictory to one another on such a vital claim. 8. It has also been contended that learned trial Court placed enorm reliance on the statement of accused person recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, par ous on his statement that he was with the deceased on the aforesaid ticularly night at about 2/2.30 AM in convicting accused of offence u/s 302 IPC. But such permissible under the law, more so, when prosecution fai reliance is not ls to prove its case on its own. This cardinal principle of jurisprudenc e was given a complete goby by the trial Court in handing down a verdict of gui in doing so, learned trial Court bridges lt against the accused person and alleged lapses/shortcomings in the defen the gap in prosecution case with the ce case. 9. Further, the conclusion of learned trial Court that accused coul explain his conduct between the time when he was reportedly seen with th d not deceased on the night of 8th of October, 2008 and time when the body of e deceased recovered on the road near Padumoni village is founded more on conjectu re than on facts. To put it differently, in spite of accused explaining his conduct during the period aforesaid, learned trial court wrongly held that the accused could not explain his conduct during the period aforementioned. Mr. S.S.S Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits before this court to acquit the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC on setting aside the judgment 10. nt, Sri d by trial Court emonstrates that the uestion. He, therefore, ng the judgment of the trial Court. of the court below. Controverting the argument, so advanced from the side of appella D. Das, learned Additional PP submits that the judgment, rendere is founded on indisputable evidence which unmistakably d accused, and none else, was the author of the crime in q this court to dismiss the appeal affirmi urges 11. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the ju dgment in question, evidence on record as well as statements of the accused per son, recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. It needs to be stated here that nobo dy saw how the deceased got killed on the night intervening 7th and 9th October , 2008 which is why the prosecution case has founded its case, under considerat entirely on the circumstantial evidence and as such, such a case needs t ion, o satisfy that tests, laid down for a case, based on circumstantial eviden ce. 12. In this connection, we may peruse profitably, the decision rende red by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sada -versus- State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. The relevant part thereof is reproduced below:- 153. (cid:28)A close analysis of this decision would show that the following co nditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fu lly established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be draw n should be fully established.
Decision
In the result, we allow the appeal and consequently, the judgmen trial court is set aside. The accused stands acquitted of offence u/s 302 IPC. He is or set at liberty forthwith if his further detention is not require dered to be d in connection with 50. any other case(s). Return the LCR forthwith.