JUDGMENT 1. The sole appellant Jugal Bihari Das @ Saptrishi Ugal Bihari Das has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, F.T.C.-VIII, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.446 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the trial court convicted the appellant for committing offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. 2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the fardbeyan of Renuka Roy (P.W.6), the informant, recorded on 21.05.1994 at 8 a.m. at Bagbera police station, in short, is that on 20.05.1994 at about 8.15 p.m. she along with her husband and children were sitting near the door of her house when three persons came on a motorcycle and out of them one of the person was the appellant Jugal Bihari Das a hermit of a ‘Math’ and called her husband Raghunath Roy and told that one person is calling you at Math and thereafter out of the three persons on motorcycle, one came down and the said hermit asked to come on foot and the appellant requested her husband to sit on the motorcycle and brought him to Math. At about 8.45 p.m., she heard an alarm “Bachao-Bachao” coming from Math side and she identified the alarm to be of her husband. She immediately went to the Math with her small child and saw her husband screaming in injured condition and was not in a position to speak anything and Jugal Bihari Das, the appellant was standing there with a ‘Danda’ in his hand. On enquiry, he said that Raghunath Roy has fallen down from coconut tree. Thereafter, the informant came back to her house and again went to the place of occurrence with her neighbours and brought her injured husband to the house. She found injuries on the head of her husband, swelling over left eye and blood patches on the right chest of her husband. She has also stated that in the meantime her father-in-law Milan Roy (P.W.1) came to the house but as there was no means to go to hospital in night, local village medicines were used on the wounds but at about 1.30 a.m. in the same night her husband succumbed to the injuries. Since it was night, she could not go to the police station. Since it was night, she could not go to the police station. She has also stated that the place of occurrence is almost 500 yards east of her house and as there was some dispute between her husband and the appellant over irrigation of ‘Bagan’, she suspected that the appellant assaulted her husband with Danda on his head causing his death. The police, after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code but on commitment the Sessions Court framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant was put on trial. 3. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 Milan Roy the father of the deceased, P.W.2 Sujit Kumar and P.W.7 Ram Kumar Pandey the neighbours, P.W.3 and P.W.4 the witnesses of inquest report, P.W.5 Ramawati Devi mother of the deceased, P.W.6 Renuka Roy the widow of the deceased and informant of this case. P.W.8 Brij Raj Singh became hostile, P.W.9 Satyendra Prasad the I.O. of this case. P.W.10 a seizure list witness, who subsequently declared hostile. P.W.11 Dr. Lalan Choudhary, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Raghunath Roy, found the following ante mortem injuries:- (i) Two oblique lacerated wound of size 3 cm. X 0.5 cm. and 2.5 cm. X 0.5 cm. over right parietal region, 15 cm. above right eye brow. (ii) bluish swelling over left eye of size 8 cm. X 5 cm. (iii) abrasion of size 1.5 cm. X 0.25 cm over outer surface of middle part of left fore arm. (iv) abrasion of size 1 cm X 0.5 cm over back of left deltoid region. On dissection, the doctor found the following injuries:- Massive haemorrhage under scalp of frontal region, right parietal, right temporal and right side of occipital region and also found oblique linear fracture of size 24 cm. present over skull extending from left eye brow to the right side of occipital bone involving left side frontal bone, right parietal bone and occipital bone right side. Massive intra cranial haemmorage was present. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was due to haemmorage and shock and all the injuries were caused by hard blunt substance. The post mortem report was marked Ext.7. Massive intra cranial haemmorage was present. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was due to haemmorage and shock and all the injuries were caused by hard blunt substance. The post mortem report was marked Ext.7. In cross examination, the doctor P.W.11 clearly denied that such injuries can be caused due to fall from a tree. 4. The defence, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, completely denied his complicity in the murder of the deceased rather took the plea of alibi but as no evidence in support of plea of alibi was brought on record by the defence, the court below rejected his plea. 5. The trial court, on consideration of the evidences of the prosecution as well as the materials on record, convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to the extent indicated above. 6. Mr. Delip Jearath, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt but even then the trial court without appreciating the evidences in right perspective wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the charge under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further seriously contended that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has though failed to connect chain of circumstances, but wrongly recorded the judgment of conviction. Learned counsel further relying upon judgment reported in North West Kakrnatka Road Transport Corporation Versus Gourabai & Others (2009)15 SCC 165 submitted that in a case of suspicion the benefit of doubt will always go to the accused. 7. Admittedly, nobody had seen the deceased being murdered in the manner he appears to have been killed. In the fardbeyan as well as in her evidence the informant P.W.6 has testified that when she enquired from the appellant he informed that the deceased had fallen down from the coconut tree but in the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he even denied his presence near the place of occurrence and took the plea of alibi though the same has not been relied upon by the trial court. The doctor, P.W.11 in his cross examination, has completely denied that the injuries found on the body of the deceased may be caused due to fall from a tree. Be that as it may, the fact which remains that during the night of 20.05.1994 the deceased was done to death. Since there is no eye witness of the occurrence, the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and it was the duty of the prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances. 8. The law is well settled that in a case in which the evidence is purely of circumstantial nature, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they donot admit any other hypothesis than that of the guilt was caused and are entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused. However, law is also equally settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the facts and circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn, should not only be of conclusive nature but they must be cogently and satisfactorily established. 9. In the light of the settled view, now I would like to examine the prosecution witnesses to see as to whether finding of the court below is based on correct appreciation of the evidence or not. The prosecution, as alleged, relying on certain circumstances that in all probability it was the appellant and appellant alone who could have killed the deceased and nobody else, had relied on the evidence of P.W.6 Renuka Roy, the wife of the deceased and informant of this case. This witness has almost reiterated the statement as given in fardbeyan and has testified in court that on 20.05.1994 at about 8 p.m. the appellant along with two persons came on a motorcycle to her house and told her husband that one person is calling him at Math. Thereafter, the appellant asked one of his man ‘Kedar’ to come on foot and requested deceased to sit on his motorcycle and brought her husband to Math. Thereafter, the appellant asked one of his man ‘Kedar’ to come on foot and requested deceased to sit on his motorcycle and brought her husband to Math. Almost after 15 minutes of departure of her husband, she heard an alarm of her husband coming from Math side and thereafter she tried to collect Mohalla people and almost about 8.45 – 9.00 p.m., she went along with the people to Math and found her husband lying on ground in seriously injured condition and found some broken Danda scattered here and there near the body of her husband. Thereafter with the help of Mohalla people, she brought the dead body of her husband to her house and informed her mother-in-law Ramawati Devi that the appellant has killed her husband. During cross examination, the witness has clearly stated that she did not see the appellant assaulting the deceased. This witness, as it appears was subjected to intensive cross examination but nothing adverse was elicited from her to demolish her case. It is true that there are certain discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of this witness but those discrepancies and contradictions were minor and not so to affect the entire prosecution version. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant by pointing out discrepancies submitted that though her fardbeyan was recorded at Bagbara Police Station on 21.05.1994 at 8.00 am but in her evidences the witness has said that on the next day the police came to her house and recorded her statement. Secondly, in her fardbeyan the witness has given the distance of the Math from her house almost 500 yards but in her evidence the witness has given the distance from her house to Math between 70-80 yards. P.W.1 has given the distance between his house and Math almost 500 Ft. and the I.O. has also stated in his evidence that the distance between house of the deceased and the Math was almost 500 yards. Apparently, P.W.-6 is a rustic uneducated lady and even it is difficult for a prudent man to give an exact distance between two places without measuring the same. Admittedly, P.W.9 the I.O. had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.6 at Police Station on 21.05.1994 at 8.00 a.m. So, the discrepancy even if any appears to be not so vital to affect the entire prosecution case. 10. Admittedly, P.W.9 the I.O. had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.6 at Police Station on 21.05.1994 at 8.00 a.m. So, the discrepancy even if any appears to be not so vital to affect the entire prosecution case. 10. P.W.1 Milan Roy the father of the deceased has testified that when he came back to house from market at about 9.00 p.m. the informant P.W.6 told him that about 8.30 p.m. the hermit of Mathiya came and took away Raghunath on scooter and in Mathiya the said hermit assaulted Raghunath with Lathi and when his daughter-in-law heard the alarm of her husband, she went there with her child and found Raghunath lying there in unconscious stage and that the said hermit was standing near the body of her husband with the Danda in his hand. Whereafter, she with the help of Mohalla people brought her husband to the house and had given local treatment. The witness has further stated that his son succumbed to his injuries at about 1.00-1.30 a.m. in night. This witness has further confirmed that there was some dispute between the said hermit and his son on the issue of irrigation of land and has confirmed in Para 7 of his cross examination that the information regarding the death of his son was given to the police on the next day at police station and thereafter the police came to his house. 11. P.W.5 Ramawati Devi the mother-in-law of the informant and mother of the deceased has stated that her daughter-in-law brought the body of Raghunath in house and on enquiry she informed that appellant has assaulted her husband. 12. P.W.7 Ram Kumar Pandey is though not an eye witness of the occurrence but he had accompanied the informant to Math and brought the injured Raghunath Roy to his house and during cross examination this witness has also confirmed that there was some dispute between the deceased and the appellant on the issue of irrigating the land. 13. Apparently, P.W.6 the informant, P.W.1 the father of the deceased, P.W.5 mother of the deceased and P.W.7 Ram Kumar Pandey have consistently testified that there was some dispute between the deceased and the appellant over irrigating the Bagan of the deceased. 13. Apparently, P.W.6 the informant, P.W.1 the father of the deceased, P.W.5 mother of the deceased and P.W.7 Ram Kumar Pandey have consistently testified that there was some dispute between the deceased and the appellant over irrigating the Bagan of the deceased. As stated in preceding Paragraph, the defence of alibi taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in absence of any cogent evidence, had been turned down by the trial court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has not even assailed the said finding of the court below on the plea of alibi before this court. So far as the submission of learned counsel that the court below should have accepted the defence of the appellant that the deceased had fallen from coconut tree here, I would like to say that though the said statement has been given in the fardbeyan but the defence has not taken any plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather had taken a plea of alibi by saying that he was not present on the place of occurrence on the alleged date. The doctor, who had conducted autopsy, in very clear words has denied that such type of injuries can be caused due to fall from a tree. 14. The circumstances in the present case which have been proved are that:- (i) The appellant along with two other persons came on a motorcycle to the house of the deceased and took him to Math. (ii) Almost after 15 minutes of departure of the deceased, P.W.6 the informant heard alarm of her husband coming from Math side and when she reached there, found the deceased lying on the ground in unconscious injured condition and there was injury on the head of the deceased besides other injuries. (iii) The doctor has also found Massive haemorrhage under scalp of frontal region, right parietal, right temporal and right side of occipital region and also found oblique linear fracture of size 24 cm. present over skull extending from left eye brow to the right side of occipital bone. (iv) In the opinion of doctor, above injuries were caused by hard blunt substance and denied that such injury can be caused due to fall from a tree. present over skull extending from left eye brow to the right side of occipital bone. (iv) In the opinion of doctor, above injuries were caused by hard blunt substance and denied that such injury can be caused due to fall from a tree. The plea of alibi taken by the appellant in the court below was turned down in absence of any evidence brought on record by the defence. No other suggestion was even whispered at the instance of the defence during examination of prosecution witness. 15. Circumstantial evidence is a close companion of factual matrix creating a fine network through which there can be no escape for the accused, primarily because said facts, when taken as a whole, do not permit to arrive at any other inference but one indicating the guilt of the accused. It is true that there is no eye witness of the occurrence but the chain of circumstantial evidence as stated above read with statement of the prosecution witness and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure himself prove one fact without doubt i.e. the accused had certainly caused the death of the husband of the informant P.W.6. The court below relying upon the chain of circumstances and use of Danda as a weapon has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any cogent and plausible ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial court. 16. Hence, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court is hereby affirmed. I do not find any cogent and plausible ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial court. 16. Hence, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court is hereby affirmed. However, considering the fact that the occurrence took place on 20.05.1994 i.e. more than 20 years ago and the fact that the appellant remained in custody from 22.05.1994 till 19.08.1995 i.e. almost one year and three months during trial and also considering the period when he was again taken in custody on 22.12.2004 after conviction and was released on bail pursuant to the order of this court dated 29.03.2005, i.e. being more than one year and six months in totality, and the fact that the appellant was fifty years old on the date when his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and now after more than 20 years the appellant by now is aged about more than 70 years, in my considered opinion, it would not be desirable to send the appellant to jail again to serve the sentence. 17. In that view of the matter, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 18. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal is dismissed.