JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arun Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Saket Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2017, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi in Session Trial No.156 of 2013 whereby the sole accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant will have to undergo S.I. for a period of one year. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Inspite of the fact that chain of circumstances was not complete, the appellant has been convicted. The prosecution has come up with the case that this appellant was having illicit relationship with the deceased and as the same was detected by the husband of the appellant, this appellant has committed murder of the deceased. This proposition is absolutely absurd because when this appellant and the deceased were having some affair, there was no ground for this appellant to commit murder of the deceased. He submits that though the husband of this appellant was put on trial but he was acquitted, considering the evidence which suggest that the husband of this appellant was on duty and was not present the place of occurrence, when the murder has taken place. As per him on the basis of confessional statement of this appellant, this appellant has been convicted. The recovery of weapon on the basis of the confessional statement is not admissible on the facts of this case. Further, the murder weapon, which was produced before the Court by the prosecution was not sealed, rather it was produced in a bag, thus, there is high probability that the said murder weapon could have been replaced or tampered with. The alleged confession of this appellant before the police was not voluntary. Further, the murder weapon, which was produced before the Court by the prosecution was not sealed, rather it was produced in a bag, thus, there is high probability that the said murder weapon could have been replaced or tampered with. The alleged confession of this appellant before the police was not voluntary. He argues that when the Trial Court has already held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against this appellant under Sections 201/34 and 120-B of IPC, and the Court was of the opinion that the part of the allegation of concealing the evidence, has not been established against this appellant, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 of IPC. He lastly submits that it is the case of the prosecution that the murder was committed in the house of this appellant and thereafter the body was dragged and kept beside the house of the informant. To do this the body had to be carried a distance through the road. The Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, thus it was for the prosecution to prove as to who dragged the body and how. Failure of the prosecution to prove the aforesaid fact will weaken the case of prosecution and will make the story doubtful, leading to acquittal. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that P.W.-8, who is the I.O. have stated that when he went inside the house of this appellant she was found crying and she disclosed that she has committed murder of the deceased and had thrown the belongings in the well. He further submits that on the disclosure of this appellant incriminating articles like bag, water bottle, shoes of the appellant were recovered from the well in front of the house of the accused, which belongs to the deceased. He further submits that P.W.-8 saw blood stains and sign of dragging of body, which would clearly suggest that the appellant has committed the murder. 5. The prosecution case is based on the FIR against unknown, lodged by one Ram Chandra Paswan. He states that he works in Railways and resides in the Railway colony at Bokaro. On 15.10.2012, in morning at about 06.00 A.M., he heard sound of commotion outside the house. On hearing sound, he came out and saw a dead body lying adjacent to his gate. He states that he works in Railways and resides in the Railway colony at Bokaro. On 15.10.2012, in morning at about 06.00 A.M., he heard sound of commotion outside the house. On hearing sound, he came out and saw a dead body lying adjacent to his gate. On closely looking at the dead body, he could identify the same to be of Shailendra Paswan, S/o Yogendra Paswan. He found injury on the back side of the neck. He stated that the deceased got employment in railway also and was residing at Muzaffarpur. His father was working in Railways but after retirement has left Bokaro in 2012. He stated that the deceased and this appellant are of the same Village, thus he knows them. 6. The police started investigation and after investigation, they came to the conclusion that this appellant and her husband committed the murder, thus filed chargesheet under Sections 302, 201/34 and 120-B of IPC. The appellant and other accused denied the charges thus, they were put on trial after the charge was framed against them. 7. Twenty (20) witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:- P.W.-1, Yogendra Paswan, P.W.-2, Ram Chandra Paswan, P.W.-3, Ram Pado Mahto, P.W.-4, Manthan Munda, P.W.-5, Pramod Kumar Paswan, P.W.-6, Kishore Kumar, P.W.-7, Dr. Vikash Kumar, P.W.-8, Mahatim Ram, P.W.-9, Palash Sarkar, P.W.-10, Kumud Ranjan, P.W.-11, Gauri Shankar, P.W.-12, Gangadhar Nayak, P.W.-13, Birendra Kumar, P.W.-14, Muchi Ram Bhokta, P.W.-15, Jagdish Mahto, P.W.-16, Sailen Bauri, P.W.-17, Raghunath P.W.-18, Sunil Kumar Mahto, P.W.-19, Dr. H.K. Sinha P.W.-20, Ashok Kumar Yadav 8. The prosecution in support of their case has exhibited, the following:- Exhibit-1, Signature of informant, Ram Chandra Paswan on fardbeyan. Exhibit-2, 2/1 to 2/4 series signatures of Ram Chandra Paswan on seizure list. Exhibit-3, 3/1 and 3/3 series signatures of Pramod Kumar Paswan on seizure list. Exhibit-4 fardbeyan Exhibit-5, Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-6 to 6/4 series seizure list. Exhibit-7 Arrest memo Exhibit-8 F.S.L. report. Exhibit-8/1, serological report. Exhibit-x for identification. Photocopy of death inquest report. 9. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of IPC and in defence three witnesses have been examined and the documents were also exhibited. Exhibit-4 fardbeyan Exhibit-5, Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-6 to 6/4 series seizure list. Exhibit-7 Arrest memo Exhibit-8 F.S.L. report. Exhibit-8/1, serological report. Exhibit-x for identification. Photocopy of death inquest report. 9. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of IPC and in defence three witnesses have been examined and the documents were also exhibited. The evidence of the defence was mainly on the point that the husband of this appellant was not involved in the occurrence as he was not even present at the place, as he was on duty. 10. The Trial Court thereafter vide the impugned judgment acquitted the husband of this appellant from the charges, but convicted this appellant only under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted her from the rest of the charges i.e. under Section 201 read with 34 & 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. We have gone through the impugned judgment. 11. We are not dealing in details with each and every evidence as the case is based on circumstantial evidence and most of the witnesses have merely stated in a stereo type manner about recovery of the dead body. We are only dealing with the important part of the evidence of the witnesses. P.W.-1 is the father of the deceased, who stated that on 15.10.2012 in the morning at about 07.00 o’clock, the informant informed him that his son has been murdered. He also stated that he was informed that this appellant and her husband has committed murder of the deceased. After receipt of this informant, at night. He reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his son. In cross-examination, he stated that Ramchandra Paswan did not tell, who has committed the murder and why. P.W.-2 is the informant, who only stated that he found the dead body just in the morning and after identifying the dead body, the police was informed. He admitted that he has signed the fardbeyan, which is marked as Exhibit-1. He further stated that he has signed five seizure lists, which were marked as Exhibits-2 to 2/4. So far on the factual aspect of this case and implication of this appellant is concerned, nothing was stated by him. P.W.-3 is Ram Pad Mahto, who stated about the dead body which was lying 80 to 90 feet away from his house. He further stated that he has signed five seizure lists, which were marked as Exhibits-2 to 2/4. So far on the factual aspect of this case and implication of this appellant is concerned, nothing was stated by him. P.W.-3 is Ram Pad Mahto, who stated about the dead body which was lying 80 to 90 feet away from his house. He also has not stated about the involvement of this appellant. P.W.-4 is declared hostile. In cross-examination nothing important could be extracted. P.W.-5 is the witness who have signed two seizure list. He stated that one Nokia mobile and blood stain soil was seized and he signed the seizure list, which is marked as Exhibit-3 and 3/1. He also signed the arrest memo, but he did not whisper anything on the point of involvement of this appellant. P.W.-6 is Kishore Kumar. He had partly investigated the case. He recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and he obtained the post-mortem report, thereafter he was transferred. P.W.-7 is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and found the following:- “1. Two incised wounds, 1 ½”x ½”x bone deep lower end of the occipital region on the skull, 2. Incised wound 1”x ¼” left palm. On dissection he found fracture of occipital bone on the lower end of skull, blood and blood clot found on outer skull, hyoid bone intact, trachea slaryinx congested, right chamber of heart full on blood and left chamber empty on blood, lung liver kidney- congested, spleen enlarged and congested, stomach contains liquid about some blackest in colour and foul smell, bladder empty. He opined cause of death is due to head injury, however, all visera’s were preserved for forensic patho chemical examination and time since death is within 24 hours. He also found rigor mortis present on four limbs, eye and mouth closed, tongue inside. In cross-examination, he stated that he only found two injuries. There were no bruises on the forearm, neck nor there was any swelling. In paragraph 6, he also stated that he had not found any bruises or abrasion on the skin which can be due to dragging or sliding of the dead body nor there were any post-mortem bruises on the back side or anywhere of the dead body. He stated that he has not found any digested or semi-digested food. In paragraph 6, he also stated that he had not found any bruises or abrasion on the skin which can be due to dragging or sliding of the dead body nor there were any post-mortem bruises on the back side or anywhere of the dead body. He stated that he has not found any digested or semi-digested food. P.W.-8 is the I.O., who is the main witness in this case, who carried out the investigation. He stated that on receiving information about the death, he reached the place of occurrence and he took over the charge of investigation. He gave detail description of place of occurrence. He stated that beside the dead body, he found the blood stain. Such blood stained soil was seized by him. He stated that second place of occurrence in this case is a small tiled house in front of the house of Guddi Devi (appellant) and by following the bold stains he reached at the said house. He also found blood there. The house consists of one room wherein there was a folding cot covered with bed cover. There was blood stain on the bed cover. He seized the blood stains on the floor and wall. He stated that when he reached the said room, he found a lady (appellant) present and was crying. On query, the lady said that Shailendra Paswan has been killed, who was her co-villager. The I.O. firmly interrogated her, when she stated that the father of the deceased was working in the Railway and was residing next to this appellant’s house. Since they were from same community, intimacy developed. This appellant had stated that she was married and was mother has four children. Her husband works in the Railway’s and often use to stay away at night thus, a relationship developed between the appellant and deceased. Once her husband saw her and the deceased in a compromising position, when her husband warned her. The deceased often came to her house on the pretext of giving tuition to her children and at night they used to meet in the said room. The husband of this appellant used to go on night duty when the appellant and the deceased use to spend time with each other so that no one could suspect them. In January 2012, father of this deceased superannuated and left for Muzaffarpur. The husband of this appellant used to go on night duty when the appellant and the deceased use to spend time with each other so that no one could suspect them. In January 2012, father of this deceased superannuated and left for Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, the frequency of the meeting between them reduced but the deceased used to come to her house and they started meeting at night. They kept their relationship alive. She stated that because of the illicit relationship, the husband had a plan to commit murder of the deceased. On 14.10.2012 at night about 09.30, the husband of this appellant went for night duty and this lady was waiting for the deceased to come. At 02 O’clock at night, the deceased came with a black colour bag when she was sleeping. Thereafter, they had food and thereafter with an iron chopper, she assaulted the deceased as a result of which the deceased died instantaneously. She further stated that the body was wrapped in the bed sheet and she took the body and threw the same next to the house of Ramchandra Paswan, so that people could believe that the murder was committed by Ramchandra Paswan and his family members. She stated that the bag and shoe of Shailendra Paswan was thrown in the well. The I.O. stated that on the basis of the aforesaid statement, the bag and other materials were recovered. The clothes which this appellant was wearing were also seized by the police. The clothes of the appellant and the piece of cloth which was used in wiping blood stains were kept in the washing machine for washing the blood stains those were also seized. He also exhibited the seizure list. P.W.-9 is Palash Sarkar, who only stated that Manoj Paswan was a wielder working under him. He stated nothing about the occurrence. P.Ws- 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are the witnesses, who only stated about non-involvement of the husband of this appellant, who has been acquitted. These witnesses have stated nothing about the involvement of this appellant. P.W.-19 is the Assistant Director, FSL, he proved the FSL report. He stated that the following articles were sent for test in FSL:- “(i) the packet marked A contained some earth which bore reddish brown stains practically all over large areas. These witnesses have stated nothing about the involvement of this appellant. P.W.-19 is the Assistant Director, FSL, he proved the FSL report. He stated that the following articles were sent for test in FSL:- “(i) the packet marked A contained some earth which bore reddish brown stains practically all over large areas. (ii) The packet marked B contained one earthen roof tiles which bore reddish brown stains over large areas. (iii) The packet marked C contained one old torn, small jute sac, which bore reddish brown stains over large areas. (iv) The packet marked D contained one old plastic gunny bag which bore a dot of reddish brown stain. (v) The packet marked E contained one old green legging said to be Shalwar which bore brownish stains only. (vi) The packet marked F contained one old striped Sameej which bore brownish stains only. (vii) The packet marked G contained one old yellow printed cloth piece said to be check cloth piece which bore reddish brown stains over small areas. (viii) The packet marked H contained one old printed bedsheet which bore reddish brown stains over small areas. (ix) The packet marked I contained one old quilt over which bore reddish brown stains over large areas. (x) The packet marked J contained some reddish liquid which bore reddish brown stains practically all over”. Further he stated on his examination that he found blood in material marked as A, B, C, G, H, I, J. So far as Material-D is concerned the blood was so minimal, that the same could not be noticed. He stated that the blood was not found in any of the material marked as E and F. He further stated that material marked as A, C, H, I and J contains human blood of group B. From material-B, the origin of blood could not be determined. Similar was the case in respect of Materal-G. He exhibited the reports. P.W.-20 is Ashok Kumar Yadav, who also did not say anything about the involvement of this appellant. 12. We are not discussing the defence witnesses as they had stated nothing on the point of involvement of this appellant rather, they were on the point whether the husband of this appellant was involved in the crime or not. Be it noted that he was acquitted. 13. 12. We are not discussing the defence witnesses as they had stated nothing on the point of involvement of this appellant rather, they were on the point whether the husband of this appellant was involved in the crime or not. Be it noted that he was acquitted. 13. From the evidence, we find that the entire case hinges upon the circumstances evidence and mainly the confessional statement of the appellant. The Investigating Officer in detail has stated, what this appellant had narrated before him. In this case, materials of the deceased were recovered, which were concealed by this appellant as per the confessional statement. It is the confessional statement from which the I.O. concluded that this appellant has concealed the materials. But the Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, thus, the Trial Court did not find any material to believe that this appellant has done something to conceal the evidence of the offence. Even if the recovery on basis of the confessional statement is taken to be one of the circumstances implicating this appellant, then also other circumstances would have to be proved independently and the chain of circumstances must be completed. We find that some materials were recovered but there is no witness who identified those materials to be that of the deceased. Not even the materials were put for identification before the father of the deceased. Thus, there is no conclusive proof that those recovered materials are of the deceased. 14. In this case, we find that as per the confessional statement, the appellant stated that they have taken a meal at night, thereafter the appellant has assaulted and committed the murder of the deceased. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem had stated that no undigested or digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. Thus, this part of the statement of the appellant does not match with the evidence of the Doctor. Further, it is the prosecution case that after commission of the murder, this appellant had dragged the body from her house and kept it next to the house of the informant. Following the blood stains, the I.O. reached the house of this appellant. Further, it is the prosecution case that after commission of the murder, this appellant had dragged the body from her house and kept it next to the house of the informant. Following the blood stains, the I.O. reached the house of this appellant. Surprisingly the dead body of 32 year male has been dragged by this lady, but the Doctor did not find any abrasion or any type of the injury on the body of the deceased. Further the fact that, even if it is night but the dead body is dragged from one house to another through open road, that too in a Railway colony, without anyone getting any clue of the same is improbable. Further we find that the murder weapon was produced before the Court but the same was not even sealed. Several cloths, garments and bedsheet were seized by the police from the house of the appellant. Out of these seized materials the alleged blood stained salwar-samiz of this appellant was also seized. The said salwar was marked as Exhibit-E and striped samiz (lady dress) was marked as Exhibit-F. When it was sent to the Forensic expert, the Forensic expert did not find any blood on this dress, which as per the prosecution belongs to this appellant. 15. So far as the motive is concerned, we find that the same is not believable. The prosecution stated that the deceased and the appellant was having illicit relationship and use to often meet when the husband of this appellant used to leave for night duty. Once the husband of the appellant had seen them in a compromising position, thus she had committed murder of the deceased. This story is unbelievable. If there was illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased and the husband has seen his wife in a compromising position then it is the husband who out of rage, could have planned and committed murder of this appellant. This Court fails to understand why the wife with whom there was relationship of the deceased will commit murder of the deceased. Thus, the story propounded by the prosecution about the motive of the murder appears to be weak and is not believable. Further except the confessional statement no one narrated this story. Thus, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the motive. Thus, the story propounded by the prosecution about the motive of the murder appears to be weak and is not believable. Further except the confessional statement no one narrated this story. Thus, there is no corroborative evidence to prove the motive. Not even a single witness stated that they had seen the deceased visiting the house of the appellant. 16. Thus, from what has been discussed above, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove each and every circumstance and could not able to complete the chain of circumstances to implicate this appellant. Further, it should be kept in mind that the charge of disappearance of evidence against this appellant has been disbelieved by the Trial Court. 17. In view of the aforesaid fact we hold that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi in Session Trial No.156 of 2013 is hereby set aside. 18. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed. 19. This Court directs the above named appellant to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. 20. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith.