JUDGMENT The appellant, having been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal from jail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2002 at about 8.00 AM, the deceased Mohan Dora, who is the brother of the informant (P.W.1) had come to the house of the informant to attend 21st day ceremony of the son of P.W.1. On that day at about 9.00 AM, the acquitted accused Narayan Das came and told the deceased to go with him as he wanted to vacate his house whereafter Narayan Das vacated the house of the deceased and stayed in the house of his younger brother Dibakar Das (acquitted). Thereafter on the same day at about noon, the deceased went to the house of Dibakar and begged apology to Narayan Das and requested him to stay in his house on rent. But Narayan Das did not agree for which there was exchange of hot words and thereafter, the deceased returned to his house. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the same day at about 8.00 PM, while the deceased was present in his house, all the accused persons entered into his house and assaulted him as a result of which he died. Thereafter, the accused persons dragged the dead body of the deceased and threw the same inside a nearby ditch. On the next day at about 8.30 AM, while the informant (P.W.1) returned to his house with milk, he heard about the occurrence from his wife. On hearing this, the informant rushed to the house of the deceased and from there, he ascertained about the occurrence from neighbours, namely, Geeta Swain (P.W.4) and Shanti Panda (P.W.3). Thereafter, the informant (P.W.1) proceeded to the nearby ditch and found his brother (Mohan Dora) was lying dead inside the ditch with bleeding injuries. So, the informant went to Nayapalli Police Station and lodged the report. Police registered the case and took up investigation and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant and other acquitted accused persons under Section 302/34, IPC. 3.The appellant took the plea of complete denial and took a specific plea that the informant foisted this case falsely against him at the instance of the others. Police registered the case and took up investigation and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant and other acquitted accused persons under Section 302/34, IPC. 3.The appellant took the plea of complete denial and took a specific plea that the informant foisted this case falsely against him at the instance of the others. 4.In order to bring home the charge, during trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the doctor and the investigating officer. The defence examined none despite being provided with said opportunity. The prosecution exhibited 11 documents. 5.The trial Judge, who tried the case has convicted the present appellant and acquitted the other accused persons of the charge basing upon the circumstantial evidence. 6.Learned counsel for the appellant assails the order of conviction on the following grounds : (i) The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances. The medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution; (ii) The prosecution has suppressed the material fact and has not examined the material witness, namely, Shanti Swain, the wife of the deceased; and (iii) The chemical examination report of the blood stained shirt of the appellant has not been produced before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant also cited the case laws in the case of Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal; reported in (2011) 49 OCR (SC) 712, Bifal Bisi alias Harijan v. State of Orissa; reported in (1994) 7 OCR 388, Anjani Chaudhary v. State of Bihar; reported in (2011) 48 OCR (SC) 156, Jaya Bhotra v. State; reported in (1996) 10 OCR 580 and A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka; reported in (2011) 49 OCR (SC) 831. 7.Mr. Zafarulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel strongly contends that the most of the circumstances have been proved by the prosecution. There was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons in the morning hour and thereafter second quarrel occurred at about 1.00 PM. The present appellant was also holding a GAINTI at the relevant time which was seized from him. Police also seized the blood stained shirt of the appellant. The chain of the circumstances has been completed and the same has been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 8.Minutely gone through the evidence on record. Police also seized the blood stained shirt of the appellant. The chain of the circumstances has been completed and the same has been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 8.Minutely gone through the evidence on record. P.W.1 is the informant and brother of the deceased, who stated that on the day of occurrence i.e. 18.12.2002, there was a quarrel. The deceased had come to his house to attend the birth day ceremony of his son. Accused Narayan Das called his deceased brother to take away his house-hold articles as he had taken the house of the deceased on rent. He told his brother not to quarrel with Narayan. On the next day morning, when he went to the basti of his deceased brother, he found that the accused persons were tied by the basti people. On his arrival there, one Shanti Swain and another woman told him that they have seen the accused persons killing his brother and the dead body of his brother was lying in a ditch. On reaching there, he also found the dead body of the deceased with several injuries on his forehead, scalp and other parts of the body. Thereafter, he went to Nayapalli Police Station and lodged the report which was roved by this witness under Ext. 1. In cross-examination, he admitted that he could not say the reason of quarrel between his deceased brother and the accused persons. All the accused persons are daily labourers and Narayan Das and his wife have occupied the house of the deceased on rent. The deceased was addicted to liquor. The house of the deceased consisted of two rooms and the deceased was staying in one room and other was let out to Narayan Das on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that the accused persons did not murder his deceased brother. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased and a witness to the inquest. P.W. a Basti woman stated that on the day of occurrence at abut 9.00 AM, she saw the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased. 200/-. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that the accused persons did not murder his deceased brother. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased and a witness to the inquest. P.W. a Basti woman stated that on the day of occurrence at abut 9.00 AM, she saw the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased. Again on that day at about 11:00 PM, there was a quarrel between them and she saw the present appellant (Pravakar Das) armed with a GAINTI proceeded towards the house of the deceased along with other accused persons. She dissuaded the accused persons not to quarrel with the deceased but they did not. On the next day morning, she saw the deceased lying dead in the ditch near Laila School of their Basti. In cross-examination, she admitted that she cannot say the type of relation between the family members of the deceased and the family members of the accused persons. She also admitted that she had not seen the accused persons near the dead body of the deceased and by the time she reached at the spot where the deceased was lying, police and other persons were present. She came to the Court being called by the wife of the deceased and she had not seen the deceased on the date of occurrence. She denied the suggestion that she had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.4, is another Basti Woman, who in her examination in chief, had stated that there was quarrel between the accused persons and deceased for non-payment of house rent. The accused persons vacated the house of the deceased without paying the rent. On that day at about noon, the deceased called the accused Narayan and his wife but she could not say that they discussed. At about 10:00 PM on the same day, she woke up and saw the accused persons standing near the house of the deceased and the present appellant was armed with a GAINTI. She told them not to quarrel with them at night but they did not hear her whereafter she returned to her house. On the next morning, she saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a ditch near Lalia School. In cross-examination, she admitted that the family members of the deceased were not in good term with the family members of acquitted Narayan Das. On the next morning, she saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a ditch near Lalia School. In cross-examination, she admitted that the family members of the deceased were not in good term with the family members of acquitted Narayan Das. On the next day at about 7:00 AM, she went to the spot and saw the deceased lying dead. She and Shanti Panda (P.W.3) intimated the police over phone and she was present at the spot till the arrival of the police. P.W.5 is another witness to the inquest. P.W.6 is another Basti man who, in his examination in chief, stated that he saw the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased over payment of house rent and thereafter he went to his duty. On the next day morning, when he returned to home he saw the dead body of the deceased lying. Police seized a Gainti from the house of appellant in his presence and prepared the seizure list (Ext. 3/2) on which he put his signature. He also proved the inquest report (Ext. 2). In cross-examination, he admitted that his wife (Shanti Panda, P.W.3) is a witness to the seizure and by the time the police arrived at the spot, the accused persons were in their house. He also admitted that he deceased was taking liquor regularly. P.W.7 has stated that the occurrence took place between 7 to 8 PM and he heard the quarrel between the deceased and the accused. On the next day, he went to see the dead body of the deceased lying near Laila School. Police seized the Gainti Under Ext. 3/2 which was lying at the spot. In his presence, police also held inquest and prepared the inquest report (Ext. 2/3). In cross-examination, he stated that the contents of the seizure list and the inquest report were written at the time of his signature. The said Gainti (M.O.I) was kept at the spot. He further admitted that he had not seen the quarrel. P.W.8 is the person who scribed the FIR and proved the same as Ext. 1. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.9 is a witness in whose presence police seized the shirt (M.O.II) of the present appellant at the police station. In cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say the date of seizure. P.W.8 is the person who scribed the FIR and proved the same as Ext. 1. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.9 is a witness in whose presence police seized the shirt (M.O.II) of the present appellant at the police station. In cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say the date of seizure. As told by police, he signed in the seizure list. P.W. 10 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries : (i)Irregular abrasions 3" x 3" area on the right half of fore-head; (ii)Abrasion ½" x ¼" on the left side of forehead; (iii)Abrasion ½" x ¼" on jaw on right side above lower border. (iv)Abrasion on the right shoulder; (v)Abrasion 2" x 1" diameter on the right cheek below the eye; (vi)Scratches ¼" 1/10" linear, on the left side of neck on the front, 4 such injuries were present : On dissection, he found the following injuries : (i)Scalp Haemotoma on the right half of frontal both pareital both temporal and on occipital regions; (ii)Extravasations of blood into subcutalaneous tissue and muscles on right side of neck; which cannot be washed away with water; and (iii)Fractures of greater cornu of hyoid and superior cornu of thyroid, both right side with extravasations of blood into surrounding tissue." He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and may be caused by hard and blunt object. He further opined that the cause of death was due to throttling. In cross-examination, he stated that injury No. 6 could be possible by a sharp and pointed object. P.W.11 is the then Inspector-in-charge of Nayapalli Police Station and the IO of the case. During course of investigation, he examined the informant and other witness, proceeded to the spot after giving intimation to the scientific team to reach at the spot, prepared the spot map, held inquest and prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He seized the Gainti. After completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. In cross-examination, he admitted that he came to know about the occurrence only after the FIR was lodged by the informant and by the time he reached at the spot, thousand of people were present. He examined Shanti Panda (P.W.3) and Geeta Swain (P.W.4) at the spot. After completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. In cross-examination, he admitted that he came to know about the occurrence only after the FIR was lodged by the informant and by the time he reached at the spot, thousand of people were present. He examined Shanti Panda (P.W.3) and Geeta Swain (P.W.4) at the spot. He seized the GAINTI (M.O.) from the house of the present appellant during his absence for which he had not handed over the copy of the seizure list to him. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that no such seizure was made and he created all the seizure lists only for the purpose of this case. 12.This Court has gone through the decisions cited by the appellant. It has been held in Shaad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra; reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to fully established. "(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The cirsumstances concerned 'must or should' and '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; (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 must have been done by the accused." 13.In the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, and 6 is to the effect that they saw the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased at about 9 AM in the morning and again they saw the accused persons quarrelling with the deceased at about 10 PM. They saw all the accused persons standing near the house of the deceased and the present appellant was holding a Ganiti. There is no material to disbelieve the above evidence. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 11 specifically stated about the seizure of the weapon of offence i.e. Ganti (M.O.I). They saw all the accused persons standing near the house of the deceased and the present appellant was holding a Ganiti. There is no material to disbelieve the above evidence. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 11 specifically stated about the seizure of the weapon of offence i.e. Ganti (M.O.I). P.W.6 specifically stated that police seized the Ganiti from the house of the present appellant in his presence whereas P.W.7, in his examination in chief, stated that the police seized M.O.I which was lying at the spot. On the other hand, the I.O. (P.W.11), in his examination in chief stated that he seized the M.O.I during investigation and in cross-examination; he stated that he handed over the copy of the seizure list to the present appellant and in token of that, he took his LTI on the same. Again he said that he seized the Gainti from the house of the appellant in his absence and for that reason he had not handed over the copy of the seizure list to him. In view of the above evidence, there is some doubt with regard to the seizure of M.O.I. Thus, in accepting circumstance No. C, the learned court below has gone wrong. P.W.9, in his examination in chief, stated that in his presence, police seized the shirt (M.O.II) of the present appellant at the police station which has been proved by him. The I.O. said that he seized the blood stained shirt (M.O.II) on production by the present appellant in presence of the other witnesses. But P.W.9 has not stated anything as to whether the said shirt (M.O.II) was stained with blood or not. Moreover, the said shirt was sent for chemical examination but the chemical report has not been produced by the prosecution. Therefore, some doubt is created as to whether the shirt was stained with blood or not. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that though there was a seizure of shirt but whether it was stained what blood or not, has not been proved. Thus in accepting circumstances No. D, the learned Court below has gone wrong. Therefore, some doubt is created as to whether the shirt was stained with blood or not. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that though there was a seizure of shirt but whether it was stained what blood or not, has not been proved. Thus in accepting circumstances No. D, the learned Court below has gone wrong. The doctor (P.W.10), who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, had stated that the cause of death was due to throttling but the material object i.e. Gainti (M.O.I) was not produced before him for his opinion as to whether the injuries caused on the deceased could be possible by the said Gainti or not. Further the prosecution has not examined Shanti Swain, a material witness. As per P.W.1, said Shanti Swain had told him that she had seen accused Pravakar killing the deceased. In view of the above, it is clear that the entire prosecution case is shrouded with suspicion. It has been held in the case of Aftab Ahman Ansari v. State of Uttaranchal; reported in (2010) 2 SCC 583 that suspicion however strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to judge watchfully and ensure that the conjectures and suspicious do not take place of legal proof. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, he fully established. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the Court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, there must be a chain. In the instant case there is no chain. In the result, the JCRLA is allowed and the judgment dated 12.2.2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhubaneswar in S.T.Case No. 181/17/2003 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him undergo imprisonment for life is set aside. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is languishing in custody from the date of his arrest. If that be so, the appellant (Pravakar Das) be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required otherwise. JCRLA allowed.