Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 958 (GAU)

Sunuwa Murmu v. State of Assam

2014-10-31

K.SREEDHAR RAO, M.R.PATHAK

body2014
JUDGMENT M.R. Pathak, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Sri Sumua Murmu @ Murali, from jail against the Judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 154 (S-C) 2009 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, in short) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for another 3(three) months setting of the period of detention undergone by the accused appellant during trial. We have heard Mr. Ranjan Kr. Bharali, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and Ms. Shemima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. 2. It is seen from the records that on 16.02.2009 Smti. Mangli Besara lodged an FIR around 08:40 AM before the Officer-in-Charge of Borhat Police Station under Sivasagar District stating that on the night of 15.02.2009 while her husband Sri Milan Besara (Majhi) was sleeping in his house, some unknown persons committed his murder by hacking him in his neck. 3. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered Borhat Police Station Case No. 05/2009, corresponding to GR Case No. 100/2009 under Section 302 IPC and thereafter, the investigating agency started the investigation. During investigation, The police visited the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased Milan Besara (Majhi) and sent the said dead body for post mortem examination, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 4. There was no eye witness to the incident and during investigation, on the basis of some secret information, Police apprehended the accused appellant and on the basis of his confession, recovered the weapon of assault produced by him from his house, examined witnesses and on completion of the investigation, vide Charge-Sheet No. 14/2009 dated 30.06.2009 police submitted the Charge-Sheet in said Borhat P.S. Case No. 05/2009 against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC. 5. On receipt of said Charge-Sheet along with the Post Mortem Report/Sketch Map etc., learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo, Sonari vide his order dated 27.08.2009 transferred the case records to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC, in short), Charaideo, Sonari. 5. On receipt of said Charge-Sheet along with the Post Mortem Report/Sketch Map etc., learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo, Sonari vide his order dated 27.08.2009 transferred the case records to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC, in short), Charaideo, Sonari. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned JMFC, Charaideo, Sonari on 29.08.2009 committed the said case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar and thereafter it was registered as Sessions Case No. 154 (S-C) 2009. Subsequently, learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar by his order dated 02.09.2009 transferred the records of said Sessions Case No. 154 (S-C) 2009 to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Sivasagar for trial & disposal 6. On 15.09.2009, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Sivasagar in said Sessions Case No. 154 (S-C) 2009 framed charges against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to him, against which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial and accordingly the trial commenced. 7. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges has examined 11 (eleven) witnesses, namely, Mangli Besera (P.W. 1), wife of the deceased, who lodged the First Information Report; Biswajeet Besera (P.W.2), son of the deceased; Debu Murmu (P.W.3), a tea garden labourer; Ruplal Majhi (P.W.4), a school teacher and writer of the FIR; Keshab Katakey (P.W.5), a Post Office employee; Indrajit Gogoi (P.W.6), a seizer witness; Sunil Hasda(P.W.7), a seizer witness; Dr. Nirmal Ch. Chutia (P.W.8), The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; Tapan Bhajani (P.W.9), a seizer witness; Ajoy Kr. Dutta (P.W. 10), Officer-in-charge, who conducted the later part of the investigation and filed the charge sheet and Dilip Mili (P.W. 11), Officer-in-charge, who registered the FIR of the case on 16.02.2009 and conducted the first part of the investigation. The defence side did not examine any witness. 8. On completion of recording of the evidence of the prosecution, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused appellant was recorded on 04.12.2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Sivasagar, upon appreciation of the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, has recorded the Judgment of conviction based on the circumstantial evidence. 9. Mr. The defence side did not examine any witness. 8. On completion of recording of the evidence of the prosecution, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused appellant was recorded on 04.12.2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Sivasagar, upon appreciation of the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, has recorded the Judgment of conviction based on the circumstantial evidence. 9. Mr. Bharali, learned amicus curie, appearing for the appellant, referring to the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, has submitted that the appellant has been convicted, based on the circumstantial evidence, which according to the trial Court, appears against the appellant, admittedly, there being no eye witness to the occurrence. The learned amicus submits that though the prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution, however, could not prove any incriminating circumstances against the appellant and hence, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant 10. Referring to the prosecution case about confessional statement made by the accused appellant, learned amicus submitted that said statement of the accused was recorded during his custody in police in the police station and the same cannot be used against the accused appellant to convict him. The learned amicus in that regard referring to the evidence of PW-5 has stated that though the said witness deposed that the accused appellant, in the police station, in his presence, stated before police that he killed Milan, the deceased by hacking him and he has kept that 'dao' (a large knife used as cutting instrument) used in the crime at his home; however the said P.W.5 in his cross specifically stated that the accused appellant was inside the lock-up of the police station and police was enquiring the accused, in his presence. 11. Similarly, according to the learned amicus, the PW-9, the seizer witness also stated that he along with police and the accused appellant went to the house of the accused, then police & the accused went inside the house of the accused and he awaited outside; thereafter police & the accused came out with a dao and the accused, in presence of police and the people gathered there, stated that he killed by the said dao. The learned amicus also submitted that the alleged weapon of assault, which the Investigating Officer has allegedly seized from the house of the accused appellant, was not sent for serological examination to ascertain as to whether it contains human blood and/or it is the same dao that has been used in the crime involved in this case and PW 10, the Investigating Officer of the case, who seized the same, in his evidence, stated that he did not send the same for FSL examination. The amicus further submitted that the said PW 10 apprehended the accused on secret information and in his evidence clearly stated that he did not disclose the source of said secret information. 12. The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the accused appellant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations against him, stated that he did not kill Milan, the deceased and that he heard the incident from others that Milan died of injuries and police obtained his statement by torturing him. According to Mr. Bharali, as the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and there being no incriminating circumstantial evidence against the appellant, the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant needs to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, Ms. Shemima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam supporting the Judgment of conviction has submitted that it is evident from the deposition of PW 5 that the accused has confessed that he killed the deceased and on the basis of his confession, alleged weapon of assault was seized from his residence and this fact has been corroborated by the PW 9, the VDP Secretary and the PW 10, the Investigating Officer of the case. Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW 8, the autopsy doctor who conducted the post mortem on the deceased, also clarified that the Material Exhibit-1, i.e. the dao, weapon seized from the house of the accused on his disclosure, can cause injuries found in the dead body. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly recorded the Judgment of conviction. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the evidence on record, apart from the Judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 15. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly recorded the Judgment of conviction. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the evidence on record, apart from the Judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 15. It is seen from the records that the PW-8 Dr. Nirmal Chandra Chutia, the Doctor who did the Post Mortem on the deceased Milan Besara, on his examination found the following wounds:-- (a) External Appearance-- (i) Incised looking cut injuries on face extending from nose to the left ear, size 4 x 2 x 2 bone deep, blood clots are adhered to the wounds. (ii) Incised looking wounds on forehead and frontal skull, size 5x2x2 & brain substances are exposed. (iii) Cut mark on the right side of neck, size 3 x 1 x 1 and carotid blood vessels are cut. (b) Cranium and Spinal Canal-- Incised wound at frontal scalp deep to the bone with exposure of bone substance." Said PW-8, the Doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and in his opinion the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage, resulting from extensive cut injuries. Injuries No. (ii) & (iii) are independently sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course and the Material Exhibit-1 the Nagadao can cause the injuries found on the dead body. The defence did not cross-examined the doctor and did not challenge the injuries found on the person of the deceased, its nature as well as the opinion of the doctor, noticed above. From the trend of the cross-examination, it appears that the defence case is that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by a dao. 16. The prosecution, therefore, could prove that Milan Besara (Majhi) died because of the injuries found on his body, which are anti mortem, caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. The question, which, therefore, requires consideration, is - whether the appellant is the author of the crime? 17. 16. The prosecution, therefore, could prove that Milan Besara (Majhi) died because of the injuries found on his body, which are anti mortem, caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. The question, which, therefore, requires consideration, is - whether the appellant is the author of the crime? 17. The PW-1, the informant and wife of the deceased in her evidence in chief stated that they have two houses and on the date of occurrence her husband was in the new house and whereas she was in the old house, their son, Biswajeet (PW-2) also stays in the house where her husband use to live and in the morning when she went to the other house to serve meal to her husband, she found that he was lying dead in the ground with injuries caused by dao and after her arrival, her son Biswajeet came there who had returned from Tinning Tea State after watching a movie and when they raised alarm, people from the village gathered there. 18. PW-2, son of the deceased stated that his father use to reside in the new house alone and on the date of the incident, he went to Timung Tea State to see a movie and returned only in the morning and when his mother PW-1 went to the house of his father to serve him meal, seeing him lying on the ground raised alarm, then he went to the house of his father and found his father lying dead with cut injuries in his head and neck. He also stated that to his knowledge his father did not have any animosity with any one and when Police visited prepared the inquest report, he gave his thumb impression in it and identified the dead body as his father. 19. PW-3, Devu Murmu, a tea garden labourer stated that around 08.00 am in the morning of the incident Biswajit (PW-2), son of Milan (the deceased) went to his house and informed him that someone killed his father with cut injuries and then he went to Milan's house and found his dead body lying with cut injuries in his neck. 20. PW-3, Devu Murmu, a tea garden labourer stated that around 08.00 am in the morning of the incident Biswajit (PW-2), son of Milan (the deceased) went to his house and informed him that someone killed his father with cut injuries and then he went to Milan's house and found his dead body lying with cut injuries in his neck. 20. PW-4, Ruplal Majhi, a school teacher stated that some times in the month of Aghon (Nov-Dec) in morning around 08,00 AM Biswajit (PW-2), son of Milan (the deceased) and another boy named Hiralal went to his house and informed him that Biswajit*s father Milan has been killed by someone and left him thereby. When Police came to the place of occurrence he has also went with them and saw the dead body of the deceased covered with a cloth in front of Milan's house with blood and in the place of occurrence itself, as per PW-l's statement he wrote the FIR wherein PW-1 put her signature in his presence and while Police prepared the inquest report, he put his signature there. He does not know who inflicted cut injuries on the deceased. 21. PW-5, Keshab Katakey, a Post Office Employee in his evidence in chief stated that he is BDP Secretary of Kachari Pathar Village and after the accused was arrested in connection with the death of Milan, Police called him to the Police Station and in his presence, in the police station, the accused appellant stated before police that he killed Milan by hacking him and has kept the dao that he used in committing the crime, at his house and then police took him (accused appellants) to his house and he left for his own house. In cross, PW-5 stated that when he enquired in the police station as to why he has been called for, then police informed him that the accused appellant had hacked a man and during that time, the accused was inside the lock up of the police station and police enquired him in his presence. 22. PW-6, Indirajit Gogoi cultivator by profession in his evidence in chief stated that one day, in an afternoon, during the ploughing season, about a year back, while he was ploughing, police called him and took his signature and along with police he saw the appellant accused and at that stage, the PW-6 was declared hostile. 22. PW-6, Indirajit Gogoi cultivator by profession in his evidence in chief stated that one day, in an afternoon, during the ploughing season, about a year back, while he was ploughing, police called him and took his signature and along with police he saw the appellant accused and at that stage, the PW-6 was declared hostile. In cross PW-6 stated that he did not see any dao etc., and his signature was obtained in the road itself. 23. PW-7, Sunil Hasda, a tea garden worker in his evidence stated that on hearing that Milan was killed by someone, he went to see the dead body and saw the dead body of Milan was lying inside his house with cut injury in his neck and about 3/4 months after the death of Milan, while he was working in the orchard, police along with Sumua, the accused appellant came to him and asked him whether he knows him or not and when he affirmed, police took him to the house of the accused appellant and took his signature there. At this stage, PW-7 was declared hostile. In cross PW-7 stated that he did not see any dao. 24. PW-9, seizure witness, Tapan Bahajani, a cultivator in his examination in chief stated that he being a VDP Secretary one day he visited the police station, the O.C. was about to leave the same with accused and on being asked by the O.C, he went with them and on reaching the village, the accused lead the police inside his house and awaited outside. Police and the accused came out with a dao from the house and in presence of police and other people gathered there, the accused stated that he killed by the said dao. The PW-9 also stated that he did not remember whether the accused disclosed the name of the person, whom he hacked and police seized the dao and took his signature. In cross, PW-9 stated that though police took his signature in the house of the accused itself, but he did not remember what was in it and does not know the names of the person present in the place of the incident. 25. PW-10 Ajay Kr. In cross, PW-9 stated that though police took his signature in the house of the accused itself, but he did not remember what was in it and does not know the names of the person present in the place of the incident. 25. PW-10 Ajay Kr. Dutta in his examination in chief stated that on last 20.03.2009 he was serving as the OC of Borhat Police Station and on that day he took over the charge of Borhat P.S. Case No. 5/2009 under Section 302 IPC from the previous OC. On reading the Case Diary he observed that SI Dilip Milli obtained the statement of the witnesses, done inquest on the dead body and sent the same for Post Mortem. The PW-10 collected the PM report of the deceased and on obtaining secret information he came to know that it is the accused appellant who committed the crime and accordingly arrested him and during the investigation accused appellant accepted his guilt, recorded his statement and accused appellant in his statement before him stated that from the court yard of the decease he called him and when he woke up and came out from his bed and the accused alleged the deceased, why he is influencing black magic on him and his family and gave blows in the forehead, neck and face of the deceased by the said Naga dao' and then the deceased fell down in his bed, died thereafter and he cleaned the dao and went to his house. PW-10 also stated that the accused stated before him that the dao by which he killed the deceased has kept in his house, used it for other purposes and if police goes with him, he can take out the same. PW-10 after recording such statement of the accused, took him to his house and as pointed out by the accused, he seized the Naga dao from him and on investigation, finding sufficient incriminating materials filed charge sheet against the accused under section 302 IPC. Exhibit-3 is the seizure list exhibit 3(4) is his signature and Material Exhibit-1 is the "Naga Dao". Exhibit-3 is the seizure list exhibit 3(4) is his signature and Material Exhibit-1 is the "Naga Dao". In cross, the PW-10, the I.O. of the case submitted that he did not send the seized Naga Dao for FSL examination and that from the statements of the witnesses he came to know that the said dao was used in the alleged crime and further stated that he did not reveal the source of his secret information. 26. PW-11 one Dilip Milli, the former I.O. of the case in his evidence in chief submitted that on 16.02.2009 he was serving as the O.C. of Borhat Police Station and on receipt of a written FIR from PW-1, registered the case under Section 302 IPC and took the charge of investigation of the case, visited the place of occurrence, found the dead body that was identified by the son of the deceased PW-2, done the inquest and prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for Post Mortem Examination and while he was in the place of occurrence he also prepared a sketch map; but during his investigation he could not find out the murderer and on his transfer he handed over the charge to the succeeding O.C. of the police station. 27. In Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant accused denied the queries made by the learned Trial Court and stated that Police forcefully took his statement, he did not kill the deceased, refused to give any further statement and submitted that he is innocent and an aged man, has children and grand children as such should be acquitted. 28. The point for determination is whether the discovery of weapon of assault on the basis of the confession given by the accused appellant during his police custody, guilt of the accused can be proved. Section 25, 26 & 27 of the evidence Act read as follows:-- "25. Confession to Police Officer not to be proved.-No confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. "26. Section 25, 26 & 27 of the evidence Act read as follows:-- "25. Confession to Police Officer not to be proved.-No confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. "26. Confession by accused while in custody of Police not to be proved against him.-No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a Police Officer unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be proved against such person Explanation - In this section "Magistrate" does not include the head of the village discharging Magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort. St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882. "27. How much information received from the accused may be proved.--Provided that, where any fact is disposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 29. In the present case, it is seen that the appellant accused was enquired into by Police and then he while in the lock up in the Police Station stated before Police that he killed the deceased Milan by hacking him and further stated that the dao used in the crime alleged, has been kept in his house. Then Police went to the house of the appellant accused, taking him along with them, took the appellant accused inside his house and came out with a dao and thereafter in presence of police and people gathered there in the house of the accused appellant, he stated that he hacked deceased Milan by the Said dao. This fact has been corroborated by PW 9 & 10. Moreover, the I.O. of the case did not disclose the source of secret information by which he came to know that it is the accused appellant who committed the crime involved in the case. 30. The statement made by the accused appellant during his police custody either in the police station or at his house, that he killed the deceased Milan and hacked him by the said dao cannot be used against the accused to prove guilt against him. 30. The statement made by the accused appellant during his police custody either in the police station or at his house, that he killed the deceased Milan and hacked him by the said dao cannot be used against the accused to prove guilt against him. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the dao that was seized from the house of the accused was concealed in his house and further it was not sent for FSL examination for serological test to prove that the same very dao was used in inflicting cut injuries on the person of deceased, due to which he succumbed to death. It is also observed that the seizure witnesses or the accused did not mention about any Naga dao and it is only the I.O., PW-10 mentioned it as Naga dao. Further, the said I.O. in his cross mentioned it as dao, but the Seizure List, Exhibit-3 shows as Naga dao. 31. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that -Section 27 of the Evidence act lifts against the admissibility of the confession/statement made to the police to a limited extent by allowing prove of information of a specified nature furnished by the accused in the police custody. In that sense, Section 27 is considered to be an exception to the rule embodied in Section 25 and 26. The first requisite condition for utilising section 27 in support of prosecution case is that the I.O. should depose that he discovered a fact in consequence of the information received mom an accused person in police custody. Thus, there must be a discovery of fact not within the knowledge of a Police Officer as a consequence of information received and of course, it is axiomatic that the information or disclosure should be free form any element of compulsion. The next component of Section 27 relates to nature and extent of information that can be proved. "Discovery of facts" cannot be acquitted to the object produced or found. It is more that the discovery of fact raise of the reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental consensus of the informant accused in relation thereto. "Discovery of facts" cannot be acquitted to the object produced or found. It is more that the discovery of fact raise of the reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental consensus of the informant accused in relation thereto. However, it is only so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered that can be proved and nothing more, the rest of the information has to be excluded 'the word distinctly means 'directly',' indubitably', 'strictly', 'unmistak-eably1. The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information the phrase, 'distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered' is the linkup of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. It is explicitly clarified in the section that there is no taboo against receiving such information in evidence merely it amounts to confession. At the same time, the last clause makes it more clear that it is not the confessional that is admissible but it is only such information or part of it, which relates distinctly to the fact discovered by means of information furnished, thus the information conveyed in the statement to the police ought to be dissected if necessary so as to admit only the information of the nature mentioned in the Section. The reason behind this partial lifting of the band against confession and statement made to police, is that if a fact is discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part only of the information which was the clear immediate and proximate cause of the discovery no such guarantee attaches to the statement which may be indirectly remotely related to the fact discovered. Lastly, 'discovery of fact' does not comprehend a pure and simple mental fact or state of mind relating to a physical object dissociated from the physical object. Confession of accused before police is not admissible in evidence. What is admissible only is that part of the confession leading to the discovery of the fact in terms of the Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 32. Confession of accused before police is not admissible in evidence. What is admissible only is that part of the confession leading to the discovery of the fact in terms of the Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 32. From the reading of Section 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act it is seen that nonvoluntary information have to be excluded from evidence; if not then the accused would become a witness to/against himself and mere discovery of a fact as a result of information of the accused given by him voluntarily or non-voluntarily will not be a relevant evidence against the accused and to make it admissible in evidence, it must be shown by other evidence that the article discovered were in some way connected with the offence alleged/charged and with the guilt of the accused. It is a settled law that on the basis of confession made by an accused before police or as the result of some information given by the accused if any articles discovered, the same will be relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only if it is further proved by other evidence that same have been used in the commission the offence charged. This Court in the Full Bench decision of Rajib Phukan & Anr. v. State of Assam reported in 2009 (2) GLT 414 has deliberated at length with regard to the admissibility of information relating to discovery of a fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 33. The requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act firstly, the information from the accused, regarding the material used in the commission of the offence and then the recording of the statement of the accused and finally the said fact has to be proved. Mere leading to the recovery of the weapon used in the crime allegedly used in the commission of the offence itself would not suffice the requirements of Section 27 of the evidence Act. 34. Mere leading to the recovery of the weapon used in the crime allegedly used in the commission of the offence itself would not suffice the requirements of Section 27 of the evidence Act. 34. Information supplied by the accused appellant while he was in police custody that the dao by which he killed the deceased is in his house and that if police accompany him, he would take out the same though leads to discovery of facts that the dao was in the house of the informant accused to his knowledge; but the said dao was not kept concealed in the house of the accused, except police no other witnesses went inside the with the accused and had it been proved that the same dao was used in the commission of the offence, by other evidence of witness or any other evidence, like serological test or others, then the said discovery of fact would have been relevant. But in present case, prosecution has not placed anything to prove the same, except the statement of the accused during his police custody at the police station and at his house after seizure of the dao. 35. It is well settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is purely on circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and must unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. 36. In a criminal case, it is settled that Court should go for strict proof of evidence on the face of which the accused can be connected with the offence like murder and when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied by the prosecution has to be fully established with the chain of events which can connect the accused with the crime, which if happen to be broken in any way, than there will be no option before the Court, except to come into a reasonable conclusion with the innocence of the accused. In the present case, though, the Naga dao was placed as a material exhibit, but prosecution failed to show and establish by any other evidence that it is the same dao that has been used in the commission of the offence of hacking Milan, the deceased by the accused appellant. 37. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial court was not justified in convicting the accused appellant, since the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and therefore, the appeal stands allowed. 38. Accordingly, the impugned conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant Sri Sunuwa Murmu @ Murari is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 39. Before parting with the case, we acknowledge the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae of this case Sri Ranjan Kr. Bharali and direct the State Legal Services Authority, Assam to pay Rs. 7,500/- towards his remuneration. Registry shall send down the records forthwith.