JUDGMENT : Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against the Judgment of conviction dated 7th May, 2008, and order of sentence dated 15th May, 2008, passed by Ashutosh Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2005, arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No.48 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No.229 of 2005, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded consolidated sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The present Criminal Appeal was filed on 15.07.2008 and vide order dated 17.07.2008, it was admitted for Hearing, notice was issued and lower court records was called for and Miss. Nazia Afroz, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant. The matter was firstly listed on 24.10.2018 before this Court and the following order was passed : The sole appellant, Manjit @ Mangra Ram faced trial passed by Ashutosh Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Simdega, in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2005 (arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No. 48 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 229 of 2005) whereby learned Judge vide judgment dated 07.05.2008 held the appellant guilty under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and awarded imprisonment for life. The instant Criminal Appeal was admitted for hearing on 17.07.2008 and Ms. Nazia Afroz, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. “It has been informed by the Bar that Ms. Nazia Afroz, Advocate has left practice in this Hon'ble Court. Under the circumstances, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae in this case to assist the Court. The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority is directed to issue nomination letter to newly appointed amicus curiae, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra and also quantify his fee for appearing in this case. Registry of this Court is directed to supply copy of brief and relevant documents to newly appointed amicus curiae latest by 20.11.2018. Call for a report regarding status of the appellant from the concerned trial Court as to whether the appellant is alive or not. The required report must be submitted to this Court by 14th December, 2018. List this case on 14th December, 2018. Mr. Call for a report regarding status of the appellant from the concerned trial Court as to whether the appellant is alive or not. The required report must be submitted to this Court by 14th December, 2018. List this case on 14th December, 2018. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is directed to nominate a learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this case. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Let a copy of this order be communicated through 'FAX' to the concerned Trial Court as well as learned Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi at once.” Further, vide order dated 04.01.2019, the matter was heard, on merits. 4. The First Information Report giving rise to the instant Criminal Appeal is as follows :-That one fardbeyan of Kisun Ram (P.W.2), S/o Late Jagdish Ram, resident of Harijan Colony, Bano, P.S.- Bano, District-Simdega, was recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, Radhey Shyam Tiwari (P.W.11) of Kolebira Police Station on 05.08.2005 at 14.30 Hrs., alleging therein that the elder daughter of the informant, namely, Sisam Devi was married about four years ago with Manjit @ Mangra Ram (appellant herein). It is further alleged that after marriage, got information that Manjit Ram had earlier solemnized marriage from before and his one wife died whereas another was left. It is alleged that after the marriage Manjit Ram had good relation with Sisam Devi for some time and thereafter started torturing her and the daughter of the informant has shown injuries on her body. The reason being given by the daughter of informant that Manjit used to take liquor and assault his wife. It is further alleged that on Friday i.e. 05.08.2005 at 11.00 a.m., one person of Village Tutikel Ganjhu Toli, Babu Lal Singh (P.W.9) came and disclosed that deadbody of daughter of the informant was lying in the pond and also disclosed that his daughter was assaulted in the preceding night by Manjit Ram (appellant) and they were quarreling for the last 3-4 days. The informant thereafter went along with the villagers near the house of Manjit Ram and noticed the deadbody of his daughter in the pond of Hari Sardar. It was also noticed that on the back of body, there were injuries of lathi and head was also injured. The informant thereafter went along with the villagers near the house of Manjit Ram and noticed the deadbody of his daughter in the pond of Hari Sardar. It was also noticed that on the back of body, there were injuries of lathi and head was also injured. It is further alleged that on preceding night i.e. 04.08.2005, the appellant after taking liquor assaulted his daughter and committed murder and deadbody was thrown in the river to show that deceased had died due to drowning in the pond. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Kolebira P.S. Case No. 48 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 corresponding to G.R. No.229 of 2005 under Sections 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused/appellant. 6. After investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.45 of 2005 dated 30.08.2005 against the sole accused / appellant under Sections 302/ 201 I.P.C. 7. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against accused/appellant vide order dated 15.09.2005 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 28.09.2005. 8. The charge was framed by the learned trial court on 30.01.2006 against the sole accused / appellant under Sections 302/201 I.PC. to which the accused / appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thus, he was put under trial. 9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether twelve prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents upto Exhibit-8 to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the sole accused/ appellant. to which the accused / appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thus, he was put under trial. 9. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether twelve prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents upto Exhibit-8 to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the sole accused/ appellant. Yashoda Devi, mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1, Kishun Ram, informant and father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.2, Bignath Ram, brother of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.3, Jira Devi, mother of the accused, has been examined as P.W.4 and she has turned hostile, Padmawati Devi, villager of the accused, has been examined as P.W.5 and she also turned hostile, Priyanka Devi, bhabhi of accused, has been examined as P.W.6 and she also turned hostile, Bhudheshwar Ram, cousin brother of the accused, has been examined as P.W.7 and he also turned hostile, Dhananjay Singh, a co-villager of accused, has been examined as P.W.8 and he also turned hostile, Babu Lal Singh has been examined as P.W.9 and he is alleged to have informed P.W.2 (Kishun Ram) about death of his daughter, Surat Singh has been examined as P.W.10, Radhey Shyam Tiwari, Investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.11 and Dr. Krishna Dev Choudhary, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.12 and he has conducted post-mortem on the deadbody of the deceased. The signatures of witnesses on fardbeyan and inquest report have been proved and marked as Exhibit-1 Series, entire fardbeyan of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, L.T.I. of informant on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, signature of Radhey Shyam Tiwari (P.W.11) on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, forwarding endorsement on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4/1, endorsement about registration of First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4/2, carbon copy of inquest report has been has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, arrest memo of accused has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6, Formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7 and post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused / appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 05.01.2008 wherein he has claimed to be innocent. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused / appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 05.01.2008 wherein he has claimed to be innocent. The defence has not examined any witness or exhibited any document. 11. The learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials brought on record, has convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at, and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused/appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Hon'ble Court, assailing the same. It is a case based upon circumstantial evidence. 12. P.W.2 (Kishun Ram) is the informant of the case and he has stated in examination-in-chief that the incidence occurred six months ago and Babulal Singh (P.W.9) informed that dead-body of his daughter (Sisam Devi) is lying in the village pond. The informant (P.W.2) along with his wife went and noticed the dead-body and he also noticed injuries on the back of the body of the deceased. He admitted that his daughter, Sisam Devi was married with Mangra (appellant). The Police has come to lodge a report and recorded his statement and he put his L.T.I. He has stated that prior to the occurrence, his daughter has disclosed that her husband used to torture her. The informant has stated that he has not informed the Panchayat about this fact. He has also stated that his daughter was married four years ago. P.W.1 is Jasoda Devi and she is mother of the deceased, who has admitted the fact that daughter was married with Mangra (appellant). She has noticed the dead-body, but she is a hearsay witness. P.W.3 is Bignath Ram, who is cultivator and he has admitted the fact that Sisam Devi was married with Mangra (appellant) and he has also stated that he got information about the occurrence from Babulal Singh (P.W.9) and went there and saw the dead-body. He is brother of the deceased, but in cross-examination, he has stated that he has no knowledge why they used to quarrel, but some time his brother-in-law used to assault her. P.W.4 is Jira Devi and she has been declared hostile. P.W.5 is Padmawati Devi and she has also been declared hostile. P.W.6 is Priyanka Devi and she has also been declared hostile. P.W.4 is Jira Devi and she has been declared hostile. P.W.5 is Padmawati Devi and she has also been declared hostile. P.W.6 is Priyanka Devi and she has also been declared hostile. P.W.7 is Dudheshwar Ram and he is cousin brother of the appellant, but he has also been declared hostile. P.W.8 is Dhananjay Singh, a co-villager of the accused, has also been declared hostile. P.W.9 is Babu Lal Singh and he has stated that the occurrence is of the year 2005, but he did not remember the date. Accused, Manjit Ram lived with his wife and used to drink and beat her. On the date of occurrence, there was fighting between them. On the next day, mother of the accused, Manjit Ram (not examined) has disclosed that deadbody is lying in the pond of Hari Singh. The informant went and noticed the deadbody and thereafter the Police came and recorded the statement. This witness (P.W.9) is a hearsay witness and he got information about the dead-body lying in the pond. P.W.10 is Surat Singh. He is witness to the inquest of the deceased and he has put his signature which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has only stated that the accused and his wife after taking liquor used to quarrel. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has neither seen the deadbody nor seen the quarrel between them. P.W.12 is Dr. Krishn Deo Chaudhary, Medical Officer and he has conducted post -mortem on the dead-body on 06.08.2005. He was posted as Medical Officer at Sub Divisional Hospital, Simdega and on 06.08.2005 at 2 p.m., he conducted Post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Sisam Devi, wife of appellant (Mangra Ram), resident of Village – Tutikel Ganjhu Toli, P.S. Kolebira, District-Simdega, aged 30 years and found the followings: decomposition not present, both arms partially tight, both legs tight, body and skin lacerated in water, bleeding from nose, both eye closed, mouth closed, tongue inside and found following external injuries :- “(i) Lacerated injury 1½” x ½”x Scalp deep over the occipital region of head with fracture of underline bone. (ii) Bruise 5 to 6” x 2” over the back of chest. (2) On external examination brain and meninges congested in black coloured Haematoma in the occipital region, larynx trachea, lungs, liver, spleen, kidney and stomach mildly congested. (ii) Bruise 5 to 6” x 2” over the back of chest. (2) On external examination brain and meninges congested in black coloured Haematoma in the occipital region, larynx trachea, lungs, liver, spleen, kidney and stomach mildly congested. Heart Chamber empty on both side, bladder empty, stomach empty, uterus empty and small in size showing non-pregnant. (3) Those 2 external injuries are ante-mortem in nature caused by any hard and blunt object can be caused by Danda (Club). Time elapsed since death about 36 to 48 hours. As per opinion of P.W.12, death caused due to Coma and Syncope due to above injuries. (4) Post-Mortem report has been prepared in handwriting and signature of P.W.12 which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8.” P.W.12 has stated in his cross-examination that injuries can be caused due to fall on stone. P.W.11, Radhe Shyam Tiwari is the Investigating Officer of the case and he was examined on 21st September, 2007. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 05.08.2005, he was posted as A.S.I. in Kokebira P.S. and on 1.30 P.M., he got an information at Police Station that dead-body of a lady was lying in a pond of Village-Tutikel. He entered the information in the Station Diary and proceeded for verification along with other Police officer, Shashi Bhushan Das and Chawkidar, Luthar Dang and Harul Kharia to Tutikel village and reached the village at 2.30 p.m. where recorded fardbeyan of informant, Kishun Ram (P.W.2) and the same was read over and explained to him and then he put his thumb impression on the same and one witness, Bignath Ram (P.W.3) also signed the same. He proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit-2 and L.T.I. of informant as Exhibit-3, signature of Bignath Ram as Exhibit-1/2 and made signature as Exhibit-4. After recording the fardbeyan, he forwarded the same for registration of F.I.R. to the Officer-in-Charge, Kolebira Police Station by his forwarding endorsement as Exhibit-4/1. On the basis of which, F.I.R. of Kolebira P.S. Case No.48 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted in the writing and signature of Mr. P. K. Bishwash, Officer-in-Charge, as Exhibit-4/2. On the basis of which, F.I.R. of Kolebira P.S. Case No.48 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted in the writing and signature of Mr. P. K. Bishwash, Officer-in-Charge, as Exhibit-4/2. After lodging the F.I.R., he inspected the place of occurrence which is pond of Hari Shankar Singh @ Hari Sardar situated at Village-Tutikel Sardar Toli @ Ganju Toli, P.S. Kolebira, District-Simdega and the same was situated at a distance of 200 yards from the village, pucca road and it is full of water and on its western bank there was a big stone where the dead-body of deceased Sisam Devi found lying and the witnesses informed him that the dead body was lying at a distance of 10 feet inside of the pond and the same was dragged out and kept outside by the villagers. There was a pagdandi running by the side of Western- South corner of the pond and in between pagdandi and the pond there were small grass which were found trampled and by looking to them he anticipated that the dead-body was dragged through the same and thrown in the pond. To East of place of occurrence where he found the deadbody, there is pond thereafter vacant land of Habil Dang, To West, field of Harishankar Singh containing six tree of Karanch and one tree of Gulaichee and thereafter there was pukka road. Thereafter house of deceased and accused situated. To the North at a distance of 50 yards there is Mango garden of Aadinath Singh and by South at a distance of 100 yards, the house and garden of Krishna Mahto situated. The Investigating Officer (P.W.11) inspected the dead body in presence of witnesses and as per his instruction another officer, Shashi Bhushan Das prepared the inquest report and he proved the carbon copy of inquest report as Exhibit-5. He sent the dead-body for post-mortem and after obtaining its reports attached the same with the case diary. He arrested the accused, Mangra @ Manjit Ram from the Mango garden of Aadinath Singh. He proved the arrest memo as Exhibit-6, he took the statement of the accused and on the next day dated 06.08.2005 sent him for judicial custody. He recorded statement of rest witnesses and found sufficient evidence against the accused then submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He proved the arrest memo as Exhibit-6, he took the statement of the accused and on the next day dated 06.08.2005 sent him for judicial custody. He recorded statement of rest witnesses and found sufficient evidence against the accused then submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-7 and identified the accused, Mangra @ Manjit Ram in Court. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, the Investigating Officer (P.W.11) deposed the distance from the Police Station to the place of occurrence noted in the formal F.I.R. The house of accused is situated at a distance of 150 yards from the place of occurrence. He has not found any clue that where the deceased was murdered. He had not inspected the house of deceased. In Para-10 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not found any scratch injury on the dead-body. He inspected the sign of dragging of dead-body on grass and after some distance it has been disappeared. He denied suggestion of the defence that investigation is defective. 13. Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned amicuc curiae, in view of evidence oral as well as documentary, submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and most of the witnesses, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have been declared hostile and even the informant (P.W.2) is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Neither the prosecution has brought on record nor the Investigating Officer has discovered weapon of assault in course of investigation. The entire link of circumstances only pointing out towards the guilt of the accused has not been established by prosecution, hence, prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, the appellant may be acquitted from charge and conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while opposing the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 15. After having heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, it appears that it is a case based upon circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused is completely missing. 15. After having heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, it appears that it is a case based upon circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused is completely missing. In this case, the prosecution has only brought the following link in the chain of circumstances :- (i) The deceased was wife of the appellant; (ii) They were residing in the village; (iii) No evidence regarding torture by the appellant to the deceased was brought on record. (iv) No body has seen both of them together before the occurrence; (v) The deadbody was not found in the house of the accused/ appellant rather it was found in an open place in the pond. So complete chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt of the accused is missing, as such, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the facts of the circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 7th May, 2008, and order of sentence dated 15th May, 2008, passed by Ashutosh Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega, in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2005 is hereby, set aside. 17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 18. Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 19. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi, to quantify the fee of the learned Amicus Curiae within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 20. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.