JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 10.03.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution is that on 14.11.2003, the father of the informant, namely, Pradhan Angaria and mother, namely, Sombari Kui along with Parvati Kui (minor daughter of the informant) went to Goelkera 'Hat' for selling Lah from the Village : Ulidih, Naya Basti. While they were returning from Goelkera Market at about 5.00 p.m. and passing through Leda II Jungle and Village : Badaila, they met with accused Birsa Angaria @ Moto accompanied by one of his friend on the way. This appellant demanded khaini (tobacco) from deceased (Pradhan Angaria) and instructed Parvati Kui (child witness), a minor-girl to go from there. As such, P.W. 2 (Parvati Kui) returned to her village Ulidih and informed his brother about the grandmother and grand-father, who did not return. Then a search was made. On 15.11.2003, Parvati Kui (P.W.2) had also informed to the informant (P.W.5) about the alleged occurrence. The informant (P.W.5) on 15.11.2003 along with other co-villagers went to Leda II Jungle and made search whereupon the dead bodies of the deceased Pradhan Angaria and Sombari Kui were found lying at right side of the road in Leda II Jungle. The dead-bodies of both the deceased were crushed with stones. Thereafter the dead-bodies of both the deceased were carried to Village : Badaila due to fear of wild animals. The informant-Jobna @ Jobna Kui (P.W.5) along with Purn Chandra Angaria Munda and Lambora Manki went to the Police Station and narrated the incident. On the basis of information lodged by Jobna Kui (P.W.5), Goelkera P.S. Case No. 32 of 2003 dated 16.11.2003 under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Birsa Angaria @ Moto Argaria and one unknown person was registered. On the basis of information lodged by Jobna Kui (P.W.5), Goelkera P.S. Case No. 32 of 2003 dated 16.11.2003 under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Birsa Angaria @ Moto Argaria and one unknown person was registered. The investigation was carried out, inquest report was prepared and dead-bodies were sent for its post-mortem examination. 3. The investigating officer, during investigation, examined the witnesses, collected post-mortem reports from Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 164 of 2004. Charges under Sections 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant-Birsa Angaria @ Moto, were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During trial, the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. P.W.1 is Dr. B.K. Singh; P.W.2 is Parvati Kui (Child witness); P.W.3 is Balama Kui, P.W.4 is Purnochand Angaria; P.W.5 is Jobna @ Jobna Kui (informant); P.W.6 is Pradhan Angaria; P.W.7 is Pusha Angaria; P.W.8 is Abhai Shankar, S.I. (investigating officer), P.W.9 is Mohan Singh Angaria and P.W.10 is Fransis Topno (Officer-in-Charge). The appellant has not examined any witness in support of his case. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty under Sections 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence mainly on the following grounds:- (a) Admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the appellant has been held guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. (b) The chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete leading towards the guilt of the appellant, excluding all hypothesis of his innocence, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered in a case of Madhu vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 399 . 6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the arguments and the contention raised by the appellant on the ground that the appellant met with the deceased on the way when they were returning from the market. The deceased were accompanied by their maternal grand daughter-Parvati Kui (P.W.2). 6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the arguments and the contention raised by the appellant on the ground that the appellant met with the deceased on the way when they were returning from the market. The deceased were accompanied by their maternal grand daughter-Parvati Kui (P.W.2). The appellant insisted Parvati to go home. After she reached home, she informed her brother-Pradhan Angaria (P.W.6) that her maternal grand-father and grand-mother in course of returning from the market stayed at the instance of the appellant and his associate and she was asked to go home. It is further pointed out that when the deceased did not return home, the matter was brought to the notice of the informant on the following morning and a search was made with the help of villagers and witnesses. The dead-bodies of Pradhan Angaria and Sombari Kui were traced out from Ledha Forest. The deceased were having injuries on their face and other parts of the body caused by means of stones. Dr. B.K. Singh (P.W.1) had conducted autopsy on the dead-bodies and proved post-mortem reports as Exts.1 and 1/1. The prosecution story further finds support from the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.6 and the Investigating officer-Sri Abhay Shankar (P.W.8). The prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt and there is no merit in this appeal. 7. Heard both the sides and examined the case records. 8. Dr. B.K. Singh (P.W.1) had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-bodies of Pradhan Angaria and Sombari Kui and the post-mortem reports have been proved as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1. Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased-Sombari Kui. (i) Lacerated wound on right side of neck 3” x 2” x 1” great vessels and muscles damaged. (ii) Lacerated wound on right side of cheek 3” x 2” x 3” fracture of mandible at its neck is noted. (iii) Lacerated wound (3 in number) on left side of neck 2” x ½” x 1” muscles and vessels were damaged. (iv) Abrasion over left leg 2” x 1” (v) Incised wound over perineum 3” x 2” deep upto abdominal cavity, intestine was seen through the wound, Pubic bone was fractured. (iii) Lacerated wound (3 in number) on left side of neck 2” x ½” x 1” muscles and vessels were damaged. (iv) Abrasion over left leg 2” x 1” (v) Incised wound over perineum 3” x 2” deep upto abdominal cavity, intestine was seen through the wound, Pubic bone was fractured. Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased-Pradhan Angaria found the following ante-mortem injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound of scalp 7” x 3” x bone deep, brain matter was seen through the wound. The whole scalp was flattened. (ii) Lacerated wound on the Right neck 3” x 2” x 3”. Great vessels and muscles were damaged. 9. Admittedly, the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The incident was narrated to her by daughter-Parvati Kui (P.W.2). According to the prosecution case, both the deceased had gone to market to sell 'lah' and they were returning after purchasing vegetables and domestic articles from the market and they were accompanied by their grand-daughter Parvati Kui (P.W.2). On the way while passing through Leda II forest, the appellant with his friend met with the deceased and requested to serve tobacco. Parvati Kui was directed by the appellant to go home and she followed the instruction. Parvati Kui (P.W.2) returned home and informed her brother that her grand-parents were stopped by the appellant on the way and she was told to go home. 10. P.W.6 who happens to be brother of Parvati Kui (P.W.2) has supported the said fact in his deposition in court. When the parents of the informant did not reach home on Friday, the matter was informed to her by her daughter-Parvati Kui and thereafter they made a search and found the dead-bodies of Pradhan Angaria and Sombari Kui lying within Leda Forest near a footpath. The deceased were having crushed injuries on their persons probably caused by stone. The matter was brought to the knowledge of the Police and accordingly, a case was registered and post-mortem on the dead-bodies was done. 11. From perusal of the evidence available on record mainly the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 it appears that it was a case of last seen. P.W.3-Balma Kui happens to be sister of the deceased-Sombari and she is a hearsay witness. 11. From perusal of the evidence available on record mainly the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 it appears that it was a case of last seen. P.W.3-Balma Kui happens to be sister of the deceased-Sombari and she is a hearsay witness. P.W.4-Purnochand Angaria is Munda of village and he accompanied the informant up-to the Police Station at the time of lodging of the First Information Report. The informant had given her statement in 'Ho' language, but it was translated and interpreted by this witness and he has put his signature on the F.I.R. (Ext.-2). Jobna @ Jobna Kui (P.W.5) is the informant and she has repeated her contention made in the fardbeyan. 12. Pradhan Angaria (P.W.6) is cousin-brother of the Parvati Kui and he supported this fact that Parvati had informed him that the appellant met with the deceased on the way. Pusha Angaria (P.W.7) is a tendered witness whereas Mohan Singh Angaria (P.W.9) is a witness to the inquest. P.W.10 is the Officer-in-Charge who had conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet. 13. We have carefully examined the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6, and P.W.10. The motive assigned by the informant has not been substantiated. The prosecution evidence is silent about enmity. There is only evidence that the appellant with his friend intercepted the deceased on the way while they were returning home after purchasing domestic articles and vegetables from the market, it is nowhere indicated by any prosecution witness as to what happened to the deceased thereafter. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased were accompanying the appellant after he met with them on the way within Leda II Forest. 14. It is a settled principle of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and further the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and that must be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Thus, it is difficult to uphold the findings arrived at by the learned trial court, inasmuch as merely on suspicion, a person cannot be held guilty, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. 15. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the instant appeal is allowed and accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 10.03.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 164 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.