JUDGMENT : Sankar Acharyya, J. 1. Against the same judgment of conviction and sentence all these three appeals have been preferred by the appellants. Said judgment (hereinafter called as impugned judgment) of conviction of all the four appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and also conviction of the three appellants of CRA No. 458 of 2009 and CRA No. 468 of 2009 under Section 201/34, I.P.C. was passed on 21.03.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 4 (February)/07 arising out of Sessions Case No. 79 of 2006. On 23.03.2009 all the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for one year individually for the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and simultaneously, the appellants of CRA No. 458 of 2009 and CRA No. 468 of 2009 were further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 201/34, I.P.C. with an order that the punishment of imprisonment of the convicts would run concurrently. 2. This is a case of blind murder having no eye-witness of the alleged incident of murder. The case was initiated at Margram Police Station on 05.04.2006 at 11:45 hours receiving a written information of the informant Kartick Chandra Mandal who complained that his brother Ashok Kumar Mandal was murdered in a hut of submersible pump on the bank of a tank namely ‘Sarsa Pukur’ on the northern portion of village Podda by unknown miscreants in the night of 04.04.2006 and 05.04.2006. Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) 3. In the trial Court, a charge under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. was framed against all the four appellants of these three appeals. A separate charge under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. was also framed against the appellants Netai Das, Badam Sheikh @ Jinarul and Kashinath Mal. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also adduced some documents as exhibits during trial. 4. Accused appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.). They did not adduce any evidence. A separate charge under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. was also framed against the appellants Netai Das, Badam Sheikh @ Jinarul and Kashinath Mal. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also adduced some documents as exhibits during trial. 4. Accused appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.). They did not adduce any evidence. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge in the trial Court convicted and sentenced to the accused persons and thereafter challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence these three appeals have been filed. 5. The determining question in these three appeals is that whether the prosecution was successful in proving the case which is based on circumstantial evidence and whether the impugned judgment is liable to be sustained or set aside. 6. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, the burden of the prosecution is to prove a complete chain of circumstances against accused to bring home a charge of penal offence. Such chain of circumstances must speak that the accused and none else is the author of alleged crime to find an accused guilty in a criminal trial. Learned counsels argued on behalf of the appellants submitted that the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove circumstances beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants and so the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants is bad in law. It has been claimed that learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously found the accused appellants guilty of the charges although the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against them. 7. Learned counsel for the State argued that there is a complete chain of circumstances wherefrom learned trial Judge rightly arrived at conclusion that all the appellants are guilty and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced in the impugned judgment. 8. We feel it necessary in this appeal to re-appreciate the evidence of prosecution which was adduced during trial. 9. Exhibit-1 is the written information, lodged by PW 1 at Margram Police Station. It was complained that the unknown miscreants murdered the victim Ashok Kumar Mandal by strangulation using ligature around his neck in the hut and shifted the dead body to a vacant land of one Najimuddin Sheikh of village Ramdaspur at a distance of about 600 meters towards north from the hut and left the dead body there. It was complained that the unknown miscreants murdered the victim Ashok Kumar Mandal by strangulation using ligature around his neck in the hut and shifted the dead body to a vacant land of one Najimuddin Sheikh of village Ramdaspur at a distance of about 600 meters towards north from the hut and left the dead body there. They also cut the penis of the deceased and left it in a paddy field beside that place. 10. Exhibit-2 is the inquest report over the dead body of the victim Ashok Kumar Mandal held by the investigating officer PW 21 Kinkar Ghosh. Said inquest was held at 2 p.m. on 05.04.2006. In that report, PW 21 described the apparent feature of the dead body which was lying at a piece of vacant land of Najimuddin Shiekh of Mouja Podda. According to this inquest report, PW 21 came to learn on preliminary investigation that the victim was killed fettering ligature around his neck by unknown miscreants in the hut adjacent to the submersible pump of the victim in the fateful night and the dead body was lifted therefrom and taking the same to the aforesaid land of Najimuddin Sheikh laid the dead body there and then the miscreants cut the penis of the victim and left it in the adjoining paddy field. After holding the said inquest the PW 1 held inquest of the penis of the deceased at 2:45 p.m. on 05.04.2006 and said report is exhibit-3. 11. After holding inquest the PW 21 seized bedding materials (old blood stained wear of quilt, old ‘kantha’ covered by blood stained wear, one old blood stained ‘sataranchi’ (dhurrie) and one pair hawai chappal (slipper) and one old wrapper at 3:35 p.m. on 05.04.2006 from the hut where the murder was allegedly committed. Said seizure list was marked exhibit-4. 12. PW 21 sent the dead body for post mortem examination issuing exhibit-11 challan and the recovered penis of the deceased was also sent for post mortem examination issuing exhibit-11/a challan by PW 21. After post mortem examination PW 21 seized the wearing apparels of the deceased on 06.04.2006 between 5:15-5:35 p.m. at Margram P.S. by virtue of a seizure list in which signatures of witnesses were marked exhibits-5/1 and 5/2. The said original seizure list dated 06.04.2006 was marked exhibit-12. 13. After post mortem examination PW 21 seized the wearing apparels of the deceased on 06.04.2006 between 5:15-5:35 p.m. at Margram P.S. by virtue of a seizure list in which signatures of witnesses were marked exhibits-5/1 and 5/2. The said original seizure list dated 06.04.2006 was marked exhibit-12. 13. PW 21 prepared rough sketch map with index of the place of occurrence and its surroundings including the places wherefrom the dead body and the penis of the victim were recovered and that document was marked exhibit-19. Report of post mortem examination which was held by PW 20 Dr. Ajay Kumar Mandal was marked exhibit-8. 14. PW 21 seized one gold necklace, one chit of paper on which name of appellant Suchitra Mandal, Rs.4500/- description of a necklace and the date 12th Bhadra, 1412 B.S. and signature of Suchitra Mandal were written and one money lender’s licence in the name of Durga Sankar Pramanick (PW 10) by virtue of exhibit-6 seizure list on 21.04.2006 claiming that the said articles were seized from PW 10 on 21.04.2006 between 6:15-6:45 p.m. Said gold necklace and money lender’s licence were received back by PW 10 on 21.04.2006 submitting ‘Jimbanama’ which was marked as exhibit-7. 15. Claiming recovery of one knife from a paddy field as allegedly shown by appellant Badam Sheikh to PW 21 on 24.04.2006 the PW 21 prepared exhibit-13 seizure list on 24.04.2006 between 10:15 p.m. to 10:25 p.m. PW 21 claimed seizure of one Bamboo lathi on 24.04.2006 between 11:25 - 11:35 p.m. as allegedly shown by appellant Netai Das beside a canal by virtue of exhibit-13/a seizure list. One label which was prepared by PW 21 on 24.04.2006 was marked as exhibit-14. The PW 21 has also claimed seizure of one old and torn napkin (gamcha) and about 10 feet long nylon rope as allegedly shown by appellant Kashinath mal by virtue of a seizure list (exhibit-13/b) on 24.4.2006 between 10:45 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 16. In the eye of law all the said exhibited documents are not substantive pieces of evidence but contents of those documents are corroborative in nature. 17. PW 1 Kartick Chandra Mondal proved the written information which he lodged at police station. He is the brother of the victim Ashoke Kumar Mondal and also the husband of accused/appellant Suchitra Mondal. In the eye of law all the said exhibited documents are not substantive pieces of evidence but contents of those documents are corroborative in nature. 17. PW 1 Kartick Chandra Mondal proved the written information which he lodged at police station. He is the brother of the victim Ashoke Kumar Mondal and also the husband of accused/appellant Suchitra Mondal. As per deposition of PW 1, in the fateful night he along with his wife stayed at Tarapith where PW 1 used to run a tea-stall and appellant Suchitra used to do domestic work and would take care of their child. In the following morning of the incident of murder PW 1 got information over phone about his brother’s homicidal death. Then PW 1 lodged the FIR and went with police to the place of occurrence. He signed on inquest reports as witness. He also witnessed seizure by virtue of exhibit-4 and signed on seizure list. Subsequent to the incident of murder PW 1 filed suit for divorce against his wife Suchitra. Since after occurrence PW 1 started living in his native home at village Podda coming from Tarapith. PW 1 stated that his brother used to stay near their submersible pump in the field and in the very night of the incident also he went there but was murdered. He also stated that generally Chand Das (PW 5) of the village of PW 1 used to stay with the victim in the night in the hut near submersible pump. This PW 1 stated nothing implicating any accused/appellant with the incident of murder stating clearly that he cannot say as to whether the accused persons have any link in this case or they have been implicated on the basis of suspicion or not. 18. PW 2 Sushil Mondal is co-villager and close relation of the victim. According to him, the victim used to stay in a hut near submersible pump in the field. PW 2 along with others saw the dead body of the victim lying on a land beside the bank of a pond in the northern side field of their village Podda on 5.4.2006 at about 9:00-10:00 a.m. His hearsay statement is he heard that Suchitra caused the murder of Ashoke Mondal by the hired murderer. 19. PW 3 – Sunil Mondal is cousin brother of the victim and PW 1. 19. PW 3 – Sunil Mondal is cousin brother of the victim and PW 1. In the morning of 5.4.2006 at about 9:00-9:30 a.m. PW 3 along with PW 2 and one Kashinath Mondal saw the dead body of the victim was lying on a land near a pond in the northern side field of their village. He has no direct or indirect knowledge as to why and by whom Ashoke Mondal was murdered. 20. PW 4 Jayabati Mondal is the bereaved mother of the victim. In the following morning of the fateful night she went to the hut near submersible pump for giving food to her son Ashoke but she did not find him there. Hearing about detection of dead body of Ashoke she went there and saw the dead body. PW 4 stated that prior to the incident of murder the accused/appellant Suchitra used to threat Ashoke that he would be murdered near submersible pump and so PW 4 suspected link of Suchitra with the murder of Ashoke. As per deposition of PW 4, at the relevant time relationship between PW 1 and Suchitra was normal and they used to live together at Tarapith. It reveals from the evidence of PW 4 that during life time of Ashoke the victim left the village Podda and went to Delhi to avoid quarrel with their co-villager relatives and after death of his father Ashoke came back home but being afraid of their relatives Ashoke again left his village Podda and went to Margram. PW 4 stated that their relatives and others of their village used to love PW 1 but all of them disliked Ashoke because Ashoke was clever and wise about property matters. Under advice of PW 4 Ashoke came back home from Margram and started staying in the hut near the submersible pump. But Ashoke was afraid of his villagers and relatives. As per her deposition, PW 4 stated before police that she could not say how her son Ashoke was murdered but she would inform to police if she would suspect anybody having link with the incident later. PW 4 expressed her suspicion that Suchitra along with others caused the murder of Ashoke. She also stated about property dispute and quarrel between PW 1 and Ashoke. 21. PW 5 Chand Das was friend of Ashoke Mondal (victim). PW 4 expressed her suspicion that Suchitra along with others caused the murder of Ashoke. She also stated about property dispute and quarrel between PW 1 and Ashoke. 21. PW 5 Chand Das was friend of Ashoke Mondal (victim). He used to sleep every night with Ashoke in the hut near submersible pump. In the night of incident at about 9:00 p.m. PW 4 went to that hut with food for Ashoke and then Ashoke told the PW 5 for watching the field and to go home and PW 5 went to his home leaving Ashoke in that hut. In the following morning PW 5 went to that hut but did not find Ashoke present there and he witnessed that the bed of Ashoke was in folded condition. He did not see any blood stain mark within or near the hut. He saw PW 4 came to that hut with tea and Muri for Ashoke in that morning and she also found Ashoke absent there. PW 5 searched for Ashoke but did not find out him. Coming back to the hut PW 5 found many persons assembled there and those persons saw blood stains near the hut and then PW 5 also saw such blood stain marks. Subsequently, on search the dead body was detected in a field and PW 5 also saw that dead body. On interrogation by police PW 5 stated that he knew nothing about the incident. PW 5 signed as witness in inquest report. He stated about family quarrel over property matters between appellant Suchitra with the victim and his mother - PW 4 in their house when Suchitra threatened Ashoke that he would be murdered and burried near submersible pump. He also stated that at the relevant time Suchitra used to live with her husband (PW 1) at Tarapith. He heard from police and he believed that the accused/appellants committed the murder of Ashoke Mondal. According to his statement he replied to police on interrogation that he knew nothing about character or any relation of Ashoke Mondal with any woman. As per version of PW 5 appellants Badam Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath mal are not his co-villagers of village Podda. 22. PW 6 Nripen Mondal was a resident of village Podda but since long before the occurrence he has been living at Tarapith. He is cousin brother of PW 1 and victim. As per version of PW 5 appellants Badam Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath mal are not his co-villagers of village Podda. 22. PW 6 Nripen Mondal was a resident of village Podda but since long before the occurrence he has been living at Tarapith. He is cousin brother of PW 1 and victim. He stated in substance that receiving information at about 11:00 a.m. about incident of murder of Ashoke at Tarapith he along with PW 1 and appellant Suchitra Mondal arranged one car for going to village Podda but getting subsequent information PW 6, PW 1 and Dinesh Mondal went to police station and Suchitra remained in the said hired car. Therefrom PW 1 and Suchitra went to village Podda by that car and subsequently PW 6 went to that village with police. Reaching at the place of occurrence PW 6 saw the scattered condition of the hut, beddings of the victim, blood stains, one crow-bar, broken electric bulb and one slipper there and he saw another slipper near the pond. PW 4 was crying. PW 6 saw the dead body of victim which was lying in vacant land adjacent to pond. He is a witness in inquest report. He stated before police that prior to the incident due to quarrel between PW 1 and victim and between PW 4 and Suchitra this PW 6 took PW 1 and Suchitra with their child to Tarapith where they started living. PW 6 has no knowledge why and how Ashoke was murdered and by whom he was murdered. 23. PW 7 is a police constable. He escorted the dead body of Ashoke Mondal for post mortem examination and after the post mortem examination he brought the wearing apparels of the victim and deposited at police station. He witnessed the seizure of said wearing apparels. 24. PW 8 Abdur Rashid Das is a home-guard of police station. He also witnessed the seizure of said wearing apparels. 25. PW 9 Harendranath Das is a resident of village Podda. He stated that frequent quarrel and troubles took place between victim and PW 4 on one side and Suchitra Mondal on the other side relating to landed property and one submersible pump. In the following morning of the incident of murder PW 9 got information from PW 5 about the incident. He went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body. In the following morning of the incident of murder PW 9 got information from PW 5 about the incident. He went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body. He does not know who murdered Ashoke Mondal. He did not state before police about quarrel of Suchitra with victim and PW 4. 26. PW 10 Durga Shankar Pramanik is a money-lender. On the 12th Bhadra, 1412 B.S. Suchitra took loan of Rs.4500/- from PW 10 pawning one gold necklace. Police officer seized that necklace with a chit of paper containing description of the necklace, loan amount and name of borrower and the money lending licence of PW 10 in presence of Suchitra. PW 10 kept the seized articles with him executing a ‘jimbanama’. 27. PW 11 Santosh Das is a witness of seizure from PW 10. 28. PW 12 Netai Pramanik is another witness of said seizure from PW 10. 29. PW 13 Vikash mal is a resident of village Podda. He saw the dead body of the victim in the following morning after the incident of murder of the victim. He stated that after arrest of the accused Netai Das, Badam Sk. and Kashinath Mal police interrogated them and at that time PW 13 and PW 14 Dipak Mondal heard their conversation sitting near the water tank within the police station compound adjacent to the room of officer-in-charge. At that time Netai, Kashinath and Badam Sk. admitted before police that Netai had broken electric bulb near the hut of submersible pump and then by a napkin and rope they caused murder of Ashoke Mondal by strangulation and Badam Sk. admitted that he cut the penis of the victim by a ‘Bhojali’ (dagger). At that time they were not visible by police officer or accused persons and they did not see the police officer or accused persons. Before that time PW 13 was not acquainted with voice of accused persons but on calling the accused persons by name by the police officer the PW 13 thought that the statements were made by accused persons. Subsequently, police recovered dagger, lathi, napkin and rope but PW 13 did not see such recovery of those articles. While PW 13 and PW 14 were in their club ‘Bullet Sangha’ the police came there and asked them to sign on three papers and they signed the seizure lists. Subsequently, police recovered dagger, lathi, napkin and rope but PW 13 did not see such recovery of those articles. While PW 13 and PW 14 were in their club ‘Bullet Sangha’ the police came there and asked them to sign on three papers and they signed the seizure lists. They saw the seized articles at their club. 30. PW 14 Dipak Mondal stated the Bengali month of the incident of murder of Ashoke Mondal as Chaitra. He also stated that remaining in a hidden place at a distance he heard Netai, Badam and Kashinath made statement before police officer admitting their guilt stating that they had broken the electric bulb by lathi and caused murder to Ashoke Mondal by strangulation. He did not say about recovery of anything by police but he proved his signatures in seizure lists stating that as per instruction of police officer he signed those papers at police station. 31. PW 15 Sasthi Mondal is a cultivator and he has one W.L.L. telephone connection in his house. He knew the appellants Badam Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath Mal but he did not know appellant Suchitra Mondal before the alleged occurrence. As per his deposition, one woman from Tarapith used to call appellant Badam Sk. through telephone of PW 15 and they used to make conversation when Badam Sk. used to reply saying ‘yes’, ‘no’ etc. PW 15 never learnt about the subject of their conversation. Many other male as well as female callers also used to call Badam Sk. through the telephone of PW 15. He stated that subsequent to the incident of this case he heard from people of village Podda that name of the aforesaid caller woman of Tarapith is Suchitra Mondal which was not known to him before the incident. 32. PW 16 Kashinath Mondal stated about bringing breakfast for the victim by PW 4 in the morning after the night of fateful incident but she found the victim missing from the submersible pump. PW 16 claimed that on his search with Sushil Mondal and Sunil Mondal they saw the dead body of victim Ashoke Mondal. He stated before police officer that he was unable to suspect anybody in connection with the incident of murder of Ashoke. 33. PW 17 Lakshan Ghosh is a child witness. PW 16 claimed that on his search with Sushil Mondal and Sunil Mondal they saw the dead body of victim Ashoke Mondal. He stated before police officer that he was unable to suspect anybody in connection with the incident of murder of Ashoke. 33. PW 17 Lakshan Ghosh is a child witness. His competence was tested under Section 118 of the Evidence Act by the learned Judge who held the trial of the case. He is son of sister of the victim accompanied PW 4 to the hut near submersible pump, where the victim and PW 5 used to stay in night, for giving the dinner to the victim and he saw PW 5 present there. Then he returned with PW 4 back to home. In the following morning he went to school. He got information there that the victim could not be traced out. Then with permission of teacher he returned home from school. 34. PW 18 Nabakumar Mondal is a resident of village Podda. As per his deposition, in the following morning of the fateful night of the incident of murder he came to know from PW 4 that the victim was missing. Then he along with others searched for the victim Ashoke and found the dead body of Ashoke in a field. Police went there and held inquest over that dead body. He heard from his neighbours that prior to the incident of murder dispute and quarrel took place between the victim and appellant Suchitra. 35. PW 19 Archana Mondal is sister of PW 1 and the victim. In the morning after the fateful night she got information about illness of her brother Ashoke and came to her paternal house where she was appraised that Ashoke had been murdered. She saw the dead body which was lying in open field. She went to the hut near submersible pump and saw the bedding and bed cover were lying scattered in that hut. Police came to that hut and seized the bedding and bed sheet under a document where she signed. 36. PW 20 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mondal held post mortem examination over the dead body of Ashoke Mondal and prepared the post mortem report where he had opined that the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation which was ante mortem in nature. 37. PW 21 received the FIR at police station and registered the case. 36. PW 20 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mondal held post mortem examination over the dead body of Ashoke Mondal and prepared the post mortem report where he had opined that the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation which was ante mortem in nature. 37. PW 21 received the FIR at police station and registered the case. He took up investigation and concluded the investigation submitting charge-sheet against the appellants. He stated in substance that during investigation he visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch map with index, recovered the severed penis of the victim, held inquest over the dead body and penis, sent the dead body for post mortem examination, seized bedding materials of the victim, examined witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.), seized the wearing apparels of the victim, collected post mortem report, recorded statement of appellant Suchitra Mondal as suspect under Section 161, Cr.P.C. when she made confession and statement leading to recovery of her pledged gold necklace from PW 10 and PW 21 seized that gold necklace with a chit of paper and money lending licence of PW 10, subsequently he arrested Suchitra Mondal and forwarded her to Court, arrested the other appellants and after recording their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. forwarded them to Court with prayer for their police custody which prayer was allowed. Taking the three appellants in custody for three days the PW 21 again interrogated them when they made statements leading to discovery of weapons used in committing the murder of Ashoke Mondal and on the basis of such statements PW 21 recovered the incriminating weapons under seizure lists. During cross-examination he stated that he did not pray for forensic and scientific examination of the seized articles and he did not ascertain any telephone number having link with the alleged incident and he did not feel any necessity to pray for recording any confession of any accused/appellant under Section 164, Cr.P.C. He also did not prove any statement of any accused/appellant leading to recovery of any seized article as claimed during trial. There is also no seizure of broken glass or electric bulb by the PW 21 from the hut beside submersible pump although bedding materials of the victim were seized therefrom and allegedly the appellant Netai Das made statement before PW 21 leading to recovery of incriminating weapon and PW 13 stated that Netai Das told before police that he had broken the electric bulb near the hut of submersible pump with lathi and PW 6 stated that he saw broken electric bulb at the place of occurrence. 38. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on the observations made by learned Additional Sessions Judge in pages 8, 9 and 10 which we set out hereunder:- “The police officer, Kinkar Ghosh deposed in full support of the recovery and seizure of the weapons of offence in course of investigation and interms of confessional statement made by the accused persons leading to discovery of those articles. P.W.21, Kinkar Ghosh the police officer, also deposed that Suchitra Mondal also confessed that for the purpose of causing murder of Ashoke Mondal she had collected money from Durga Sankar Pramanik keeping her golden necklace as security and interms of her confessional statement leading to discovery the officer during investigation made search in the house of Durga Sankar Pramanik and the necklace of Suchitra Mondal along with the piece of paper containing details of the mortgage by Suchitra in respect of the golden necklace were seized. Durga Sankar also handed over the documents in respect of his money lending licence and witnesses Jayabati Mondal, Chand Das and Archana Mondal deposed before the Court that they believed that Suchitra Mondal with the help of the other accused persons Badam Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath Mal caused the murder of Ashoke Mondal near the suh-mersible pump ad for diverting notice of the public caused the penis of the deceased removed by cutting of the same and dropped the same within the paddy field, thereafter, the dead-body of Ashoke Mondal was dropped at a distance in the open field in the northern direction. Witness Dipak Mondal, P.W.14 in his evidence, stated that in the night he heard Netai, Badam and Kashinath to state before the police that they have caused murder of Ashoke Monda by strangulation while Vikash Mondal was also there, and, Vikash Mondal, P.W.13 has also deposed that he has heard the accd. Persons to admit the guilt of murder of Ashoke Mondal before the police at the PS and they have also admitted the fact of cutting the penis of deceased with a BHOJALI. Now, facts and circumstances disclosed by the witnesses, if taken into consideration one after another, the only fact which came out is that accd. Suchitra Mondal in continuation of grudge and enmity fixed up her mind to cause murder of Ashokie Mondal, made contact with Badam Sk. @ Jinarul for working as hired murderer, thereafter, for making payment for the crime collected money by taking loan from the money lender, keeping her golden necklace as security & the hired murderers Badam Sk. @ Jinarul, Netai Das and Kashinath Mal acted as the murderers of Ashoke. Then, it is undoubtedly established that with that purpose and intention, Suchitra, Netai, Kashinath, and Badam Sk. acted together in furtherance of the conspiracy but after committing murder of Ashoke the hired murderers Badam Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath Mal thought about diverting the notice of the public otherwise and dropped the dead-body of the victim on the separate place and dropped t the cut, removed penis of the decease inside the paddy field. Then the chain of the circumstances becomes complete without any interruption and in continuity of the facts and circumstances points at the accused persons as the murderers of Ashoke Mondal.” 39. Then the chain of the circumstances becomes complete without any interruption and in continuity of the facts and circumstances points at the accused persons as the murderers of Ashoke Mondal.” 39. Some undisputed facts in the case are:- (i) that in the night of 04.04.2006 and 05.04.2006 in a hut near submersible pump in the field of village – Podda the victim Ashoke Mondal was murdered by strangulation where the victim used to stay; (ii) that his dead body was found in a vacant land near the hut beside a pond and his penis was found cut away and that removed penis was found in a nearby paddy field; (iii) that PW 5 Chand Das used to stay with victim in night and he was last seen present in the hut; (iv) that the death of victim Ashoke Mondal was a homicidal death; (v) that the informant PW 1 is brother of the victim and accused/appellant Suchitra Mondal is the wife of PW 1; (vi) that in the night of occurrence PW 1 and his wife Suchitra stayed at Tarapith where they lived leaving their house of village – Podda since before the date of occurrence; (vii) that during life time of Ashoke he had dispute and quarrel with his relatives in village – Podda for which Ashoke left the village and went to Delhi and after his father’s death he returned back to his home at Podda but being afraid of his relatives he again left village – Podda and started living at village – Margram out of fear as his relatives and others of village – Podda would dislike him; (viii) that under advice of his mother (PW 4) Ashoke returned home from Margram and he started living in the hut near submersible pump but he was afraid of the villagers and his relatives. 40. During trial, no statement of any accused/appellant leading to recovery of any seized article was brought on record by prosecution as a piece of evidence. According to PW 21, the accused/appellant Suchitra Mondal made statement before him leading to recovery of gold necklace from PW 10, before her arrest. 40. During trial, no statement of any accused/appellant leading to recovery of any seized article was brought on record by prosecution as a piece of evidence. According to PW 21, the accused/appellant Suchitra Mondal made statement before him leading to recovery of gold necklace from PW 10, before her arrest. As such, on the basis of deposition of PW 21 only the prosecution cannot claim advantage of Section 27 of the Evidence Act to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any accused/appellant, while in the custody of a police officer made any statement leading to recovery anything. 41. Surprisingly, learned Additional Sessions Judge in page 7 of the impugned judgment observed beyond any material on record that on the basis of confessional statements of accused the cut and removed penis of the deceased was recovered from the paddy field. Significantly, we like to mention that as per exhibit-3, the PW 21 held inquest over the penis the accused persons were arrested by police long after that date. Therefore, we find the such observation in the impugned judgment is perverse. 42. Learned trial Judge further observed in that a page that during investigation accused Badam Sk. alias Jinarul, Kashinath Mal and Netai das were arrested and during police custody they made confessional statement admitting their guilt and disclosed stating that they acted as hired murderer on call of Suchitra Mondal and committed murder of Ashoke Mondal near submersible pump in question. On close scrutiny on the materials on record it appears to us that such observation is not supported by any iota of evidence on record. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that such observation was made on the basis of surmise and conjecture. 43. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that Suchitra Mondal confessed that for the purpose of causing murder of Ashoke Mondal she had collected money from Durga Shankar Pramanik (PW 10) keeping her gold necklace as security. Such observation is baseless in view of the evidence on record and therefore, we find such observation as perverse. 44. 43. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that Suchitra Mondal confessed that for the purpose of causing murder of Ashoke Mondal she had collected money from Durga Shankar Pramanik (PW 10) keeping her gold necklace as security. Such observation is baseless in view of the evidence on record and therefore, we find such observation as perverse. 44. In page – 9 of the impugned judgment it was observed that Jayabati Mondal (PW 4), Chand Das (PW 5) and Archana Mondal (PW 19) deposed before the court that they believed that Suchitra Mondal with the help of other accused persons Badam Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath Mal caused the murder of Ashoke Mondal near the submersible pump and for diverting notice of the public caused the penis of the deceased removed by cutting the same and dropped the same within the paddy field and thereafter the dead-body of Ashoke Mondal was dropped at a distance in the open field in the northern direction. In this connection we like to set out relevant potions of deposition of the said witnesses. 45. PW 4 stated, “Till today on the basis of my suspicion I think Suchitra Mondal along with others caused murder of my son Ashoke Mondal. I am of the belief that the accused persons are liable for the murder of my son Ashoke Mondal.” 46. PW 5 stated, “I have heard from the police during investigation of the case that Suchitra Mondal, Badam Sk, Netai das and Kashinath Mal are liable for the murder of Ashoke Mondal. I do believe also that the accused persons facing trial in this case have committed the murder of Ashoke Mondal.” 47. In the deposition of PW 19, there is no whisper even that she had any belief against any accused/appellant as connected with the murder of her brother Ashoke Mondal. 48. Therefore, in our opinion, aforesaid observation made in page – 9 of the impugned judgment is also perverse. 49. In our opinion, in the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the basic points of law that in a criminal trial prosecution must prove a case beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge of penal offence against the accused and that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof. 50. 49. In our opinion, in the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the basic points of law that in a criminal trial prosecution must prove a case beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge of penal offence against the accused and that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof. 50. In the impugned judgment reliance has been placed on deposition of PW 13 and PW 14 where they claimed that they overheard alleged confession of accused persons before police in order to strengthen the findings relating to confessional statements of the accused/appellants. Grave error in law has been caused in the impugned judgment without considering the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act and without treating the statements PW 13 and PW 14 as ‘hearsay’ having no evidentiary value in the eye of law. 51. From the totality of evidence on record at best it could be believed that prior to the homicidal death of Ashoke Mondal he had quarrel and dispute with his villagers and relatives of whom he remained afraid and that in course of family quarrel appellant Suchitra Mondal threatened him that he would be murdered near submersible pump. Mere such threat of Suchitra and subsequent homicidal death of Ashoke near submersible pump cannot make Suchitra as author of the crime specially when it is undisputed that in the fateful night she remained with her husband away from village – Podda and was at Tarapith. There is no evidence against other appellants about mens rea for the incident of murder. 52. There is no evidence against other appellants about mens rea for the incident of murder. 52. The questions raised by learned advocates for the appellants towards State respondent are:- (i) why PW 5, who used to stay with victim in every night and was last seen with victim at the place of occurrence in the fateful night was not booked by police in the list of suspects of committing the crime; (ii) why no resident of village – Podda barring appellant Suchitra who also was living at Tarapith was suspected by police as culprit for the crime when it is proved that during life time Ashoke remained afraid of his relatives and villagers; (iii) how the collection of Rs.4,500/- by appellant Suchitra from PW 10 pawning her gold necklace in the month of Bhadra 1412 B.S. could be connected with the incident of murder of Ashoke which occurred after seven months in Chaitra, 1412 B.S. (iv) why no attempt was made by PW 21 to take assistance of modern technology to confirm about alleged conversation of appellant Suchitra Mondal and appellant Badam Sk. through W.L.L. telephone of PW 15. 53. Said questions remain questions without satisfactory answers. It is fatal for the State prosecution to prove the case against accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 54. Regarding claim of recovery of incriminating weapons by PW 21 in presence of PW 13 and PW 14 it is significant to note that neither PW 13 nor PW 14 stated that in his presence any such recovery was made. Rather, PW 13 stated that they saw the ‘Bhojali’ (dagger), rope, napkin and lathi in their club as shown by police and they signed documents in that club and PW 14 stated that the articles were shown to him at police station by police and he signed the documents (seizure lists) as per instruction of police officer. As such, we do not believe the deposition of PW 21 regarding recovery and seizure of incriminating weapons from the alleged places of seizure at the instance of appellants Badam Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath Mal as true. 55. In the light of our observations made in the foregoing paragraphs we think further discussion is redundant and the discussions may be concluded with observation that serious miscarriage of justice has been caused finding the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them in the impugned judgment. 55. In the light of our observations made in the foregoing paragraphs we think further discussion is redundant and the discussions may be concluded with observation that serious miscarriage of justice has been caused finding the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and we find all the accused/appellants not guilty of the charges framed against them and each of them deserves acquittal as the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. 56. As a result, all these three appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and orders of conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside. Accused appellants are set at liberty. Since appellant Suchitra Mondal was granted bail in order dated 15.03.2010 by this Court she is discharged from her bail bond. Let other appellants namely, Badam Sk. @ Jinarul Sk., Netai Das and Kashinath Mal be released from custody forthwith if their detention is not required in any other case. 57. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court from the criminal section for information and necessary action. I agree – Aniruddha Bose and Sankar Acharyya, JJ.