JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The State has assailed the judgment and order dated 05.03.2009 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2006, State v. Leeladhar Joshi & five others. For the sake of convenience, accused Leeladhar Joshi is referred as (A1), Krishnanand Joshi (A2), Ganesh Dutt Joshi (A3), Mathura Dutt Joshi (A4), Tika Ram Joshi (A5) and Madhvanand Joshi as (A6). A3 and A6 were tried for the offence of Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC whereas remaining accused persons were charged for the offence of Sections 302 r/w 201 IPC. The case bears the crime no.2/2005 which was registered at Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that A1, A2, A4 and A6 are the real brothers, whereas A3 is the son of A5, being closely relative to remaining accused persons residing in the same vicinity. That apart, deceased Tara Dutt and the informant Badri Dutt (PW2) are also the relations of these accused persons. 3. The prosecution story unfolds that Tara Dutt (deceased) along with his wife Smt. Munni Devi (PW1) had gone to attend the marriage scheduled at village Airadi in the house of A4, whose son Kailash had to be married on 4.5.2005. In the same marriage, Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of PW1) with her son Santosh Chand (PW4) had arrived from their village Saniuidyar, whereas another daughter Tara Devi (PW3) reached there from village Footsill. 4. In the morning of 4.5.2005, deceased along with many other relatives went in the marriage party; he returned in the evening of same day along with the marriage party and passed the intervening night of 4/5th May, 2005 along with his wife Smt. Munni Devi at the house of A4 itself. 5. In the morning of 5th May, 2005, the marriage party of Khimanand S/o Krishnanand Joshi (A2) had to leave, so the deceased participated that wedding too and returned in the evening along with all the members of such party after solemnization of marriage. 6. However, PW1 had not gone in the marriage of son of A2 and she had remained in the house of A4 itself, so the deceased, after coming back from the said marriage, also returned to the house of A4 in the evening of 5.5.2005. 6. However, PW1 had not gone in the marriage of son of A2 and she had remained in the house of A4 itself, so the deceased, after coming back from the said marriage, also returned to the house of A4 in the evening of 5.5.2005. When PW1 was busy in the company of new bride, she noticed that A3 was having a vigil eye in all the rooms. After some time, her husband Tara Dutt came there and she became busy in interacting with him. Meanwhile, A3 came there and asked Tara Dutt about the reason of his sitting there; then he (A3) caught the hand of Tara Dutt and took him away on the pretext of going at the house of A2. After that, the deceased did not return and his dead body was found on 10.5.2005 in the ditch like space between the houses of A2 and A1. 7. Meanwhile, since Tara Dutt had not returned along with PW1 after the marriage was over on 5.5.2005, a missing report was lodged on 8th May, 2005 by PW2 Badri Dutt. 8. In the evening of 10.5.2005, one of the accused persons came in village Hamkarki (native place of deceased) and informed about the laying of dead body, as described above. Thereafter, in the morning of 11.5.2005 at 8:40 AM, the first information report (Ex.Ka-1) could be lodged at Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh, the Chick report whereof is Ex.Ka-2. Inquest report (Ex.Ka-5) was prepared in presence of police personnel and many other villagers of Hamakarki and Airadi, who all opined that deceased had died on account of injuries sustained by him, however, they all asked for post-mortem. 9. Autopsy was conducted on the dead body in the district hospital on the same day at 3:45 PM. PW8 Dr. D.S. Panchpal has proved the following ante-mortem injuries recorded in such report (Ex.Ka-18): - A. “2 x .5 cm lacerated wound on left side of chin, B. 2 x 1 cm lacerated wound on the occipital region”. 10. In the internal examination, the medical officer found that the occipital bone of deceased had been fractured. In all, the doctor opined that the death had occurred on account of ante-mortem injuries as a result of shock and haemorrhage. 11. Investigation culminated into submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-17) against the accused persons for the offences u/s 302/201/34 IPC. 10. In the internal examination, the medical officer found that the occipital bone of deceased had been fractured. In all, the doctor opined that the death had occurred on account of ante-mortem injuries as a result of shock and haemorrhage. 11. Investigation culminated into submission of chargesheet (Ex.Ka-17) against the accused persons for the offences u/s 302/201/34 IPC. Charges were also levelled, accordingly, by the Sessions Judge. 12. Prosecution has examined PW1 Smt. Munni Devi (wife of deceased), PW2 Badri Dutt (informant/ uncle of deceased), PW3 Tara Devi (sister of PW1), PW4 Santosh Chandra, a boy of 15 years (real brother of PW1 and PW3), PW5 Constable Prakash Chand Arya (who registered the case), PW6 Sub Inspector V.P. Gautam (who investigated the matter and submitted chargesheet), PW7 Sayan Singh, Judicial Magistrate (who recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1) and PW8 Dr. D.S. Panchpal (who conducted the post-mortem). 13. Thereafter, the statements of all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They all denied their guilt. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment as well. 15. Having appreciated the entire evidence on record, we find that the complicity of the accused persons has been suspected just on the basis of circumstantial evidence, so the chargesheet was submitted against them. There is no direct testimony available linking the accused/respondents with the alleged offence. It is an admitted fact that deceased Tara Dutt carried his wife Munni Devi on 2.5.2005 itself to the marriage house of PW4 where all the accused persons (either serving or retired from the Army) were present. The houses of PW4 and PW2 are situated in the same village at a short distance. On both the dates i.e. on 4th and 5th May, 2005, deceased Tara Dutt attended marriages in the houses of A4 and A2 respectively along with other accused persons. Nothing had happened there on those dates. On 5.5.2005, when PW1 was busy in interacting with her husband (deceased), A3 came there who succeeded in taking deceased from there on the pretext of going at the house of A2. When the deceased did not return for some time, PW1 was inclined to go to see her husband but she was prevented by her mother Ganga Devi from going since PW1 had a baby in her lap. When the deceased did not return for some time, PW1 was inclined to go to see her husband but she was prevented by her mother Ganga Devi from going since PW1 had a baby in her lap. However, Ganga Devi asked PW3 Tara Devi and PW4 Santosh Chand to go for that purpose. 16. The significant aspect of the matter is that when PW3 and PW4 were about to reach at the house of A2, they saw Tara Dutt being beaten by A3. The latter was carrying deceased somewhere whereas A6 was enlightening the passage with Patromax. A6 was also exhorting A3 to beat Tara Dutt. When PW3 and PW4 asked them the reason for doing so, A3 responded that they were taking Tara Dutt to Chaukadi (a place where deceased was running his fair price as well as grocery shop). 17. After having watched this scene, PW3 and PW4 returned to the house of A4 but did not inform anyone about such incident. Here, the question arises that when PW3 with her real brother PW4 had seen that their real brother-in-law (Tara Dutt) was being carried and beaten at the hands of A3 and A6, then what was the reason for them not to disclose such fact either to PW1 or other relatives who had assembled in the house of A2. Thus, the inference can be drawn that PW3 and PW4 did not see any such occurrence because had they witnessed the incident, there was nothing restraining them from making disclosure of such happening to other near relatives including their own mother Smt. Ganga Devi. It also needs to be mentioned here that Smt. Ganga Devi was not examined, as a witness, by the prosecution. 18. PW4 Santosh Chandra has deposed that he along with his mother Ganga Devi had returned to his house on 6.5.2005 at village Saniudiyar whereas, PW3 Tara Devi had gone to her in-laws house situated in village Footsill. If these facts are taken to be true, then it is difficult to understand that PW1 Munni Devi remained in the house of Mathura Dutt (A4) even up to 9.5.2005 and did not show any anxiety about absence of her husband. It was only on 10th May, 2005 when the people from village Hamkarki were coming to Airadi in search of Tara Dutt, then PW1 has deposed to be working in the agricultural field of A4. It was only on 10th May, 2005 when the people from village Hamkarki were coming to Airadi in search of Tara Dutt, then PW1 has deposed to be working in the agricultural field of A4. PW1 asked the reason from A4 as to why the people from her in-laws village had come there, to which, A4 replied that they had come to have the feast of marriage. 19. That apart, on 6.5.2005, when PW1 went to the house of A2 to enquire the whereabouts of her husband, she was told that her husband had left for Chaukadi in the last night itself; then she sent Kailash (son of A4) at her husband’s shop situated at Chaukadi. Kailash returned therefrom and informed that whereabouts of Tara Dutt were not traceable. Having received such information, she kept on working in the agricultural field of A4 up to 7.5.2005, which is somewhat not believable to this Court too. 20. The complicity of accused persons has been estimated just on the reason that they were seen by PW1 sprinkling cow urine in their house, so it was suspected that they all had either killed Tara Dutt in their house or had kept his body there. Even for a moment, if it is believed that A3 and A6 were carrying Tara Dutt while beating him in the night of 5.5.2005 and he was killed in that night itself, then also, it is not believable that after killing him on the way, they brought the dead body back for being concealed in the house and such dead body remained lying in the house continuously for five days and that too, in the peak days of summer. Here, the fact cannot be ignored that Leeladhar Joshi (A1) carried information that the dead body was lying in a Gadhera (a big ditch) in the evening of 10.5.2005 to village Hamkarki. This also indicates about the innocence of A1 from the incident. 21. It is an established principle of law that where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be linked and completed in such a manner so as to lead an irresistible conclusion pointing out towards the guilt of the accused persons and no other hypothesis. There is no such perfect link available in the instant case. 22. It is an established principle of law that where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be linked and completed in such a manner so as to lead an irresistible conclusion pointing out towards the guilt of the accused persons and no other hypothesis. There is no such perfect link available in the instant case. 22. In sum and substance, we find that the impugned judgment is quite reasoned and well discussed and there is no reason to disagree with the view taken by learned Trial Judge. There is no merit in this appeal preferred by the State. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order passed by learned Trial Judge is hereby affirmed. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the L.C.R. be transmitted to the court concerned.