JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 5th December, 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.334 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of 01 (one) year for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 (five) years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 01 (one) year for the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. This appeal has already been admitted on 19.03.2024 and Trial Court Records were called for. The Trial Court Records have already been received. Today, this appeal has been listed for purposes of consideration of the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1684 of 2024 filed by the appellant, wherein the appellant has prayed to suspend the sentence and release him on bail. 3. While arguing the interlocutory application for suspension of sentence and to release the appellant on bail, learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the entire evidence led by the prosecution in detail. Learned counsel read the depositions of all the witnesses and also referred to the documentary evidence in support of his contention that the appellant be released on bail. Learned A.P.P. also opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and apprised this Court through the entire evidence. In fact, appeal, entirely, was heard on merit. 4. When the appeal in its entirety has been heard on merit and nothing more was left to be argued, we proposed to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage, considering that the same has been admitted and the Trial Court Record is already before us. In fact, appeal, entirely, was heard on merit. 4. When the appeal in its entirety has been heard on merit and nothing more was left to be argued, we proposed to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage, considering that the same has been admitted and the Trial Court Record is already before us. Both the learned counsel for the appellant and the State agreed to the said proposal and have submitted that they are having all the documents including the evidence, which they rely upon and the argument, which they have placed on the interlocutory application seeking bail, in fact, is the argument they will put forth at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. 5. Considering the aforesaid fact and on consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing as we have heard the parties at length. 6. Challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence at all to convict the appellant in this case. He submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant has been implicated in this case only on the basis that the appellant being the son, earlier used to quarrel with his parents and there was some dispute with the father and mother. Only on the basis of such suspicion, this appellant has been implicated in this case and has been convicted. He further submits that the first person who had seen the deceased, is the wife of Mangu Nag, who informed her husband about the same, but surprisingly, she has not been cited or examined by the prosecution as a witness in this case. He submits that even Mangru Nag, who informed the informant about the occurrence is not an eye witness, rather he only stated about conducting of a Gram Sabha and thereafter going to the Police Station. He submits that the witness Mangru Nag only on presumption has stated that the appellant might have killed the deceased as there was some altercation between the deceased and the appellant. He even showed his ignorance as to whether the appellant fled or not. He submits that the witness Mangru Nag only on presumption has stated that the appellant might have killed the deceased as there was some altercation between the deceased and the appellant. He even showed his ignorance as to whether the appellant fled or not. Learned counsel further argues that though the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence, yet the chain of circumstances are not complete. Thus, he submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are bad and are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the learned Trial Court has correctly convicted the appellant as there are sufficient materials as against the appellant to prove his guilt. He submits that the prosecution witnesses have stated in a uniform manner that the appellant has committed the offence and fled to his in-law’s house alongwith his wife and children. He submits that there is no ambiguity or contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses so as to create any doubt over the prosecution case. He submits that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of appellant by completing the chain of circumstances. Further, the prosecution witnesses are also consistent on the point of motive, inasmuch as the witnesses have stated that there was altercation between the deceased and the appellant prior to the occurrence. Thus, he submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order sentence need no interference by this Court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State and have also gone through the records and the entire evidence. 9. Prosecution case is based on the written report dated 20.10.2021 of the informant Soma Purti. He stated that on 19.10.2021 at 08.00 a.m. the villagers informed him that his sister Charia Nag and her husband Badu Nag (both deceased) have been murdered by their son Madiray Ahir (appellant). On receiving such information, he rushed to his sister’s place. Near his sister’s house, he saw that the villagers have gathered beneath a tree. When he reached there, he noticed that his brother-in-law Badu Nag is hanging from the tree with a knot of lungi. Marks of assault were also present on his body. Thereafter with the help of villagers, he took the body of his brother-in-law to his home. Near his sister’s house, he saw that the villagers have gathered beneath a tree. When he reached there, he noticed that his brother-in-law Badu Nag is hanging from the tree with a knot of lungi. Marks of assault were also present on his body. Thereafter with the help of villagers, he took the body of his brother-in-law to his home. On reaching home, he saw that his sister Charia Nag is lying dead on a mat. It was informed by the villagers that last night there was intense quarrel among his sister Charia Nag and his nephew Madiray Ahir. Adjacent neighbour Mangra Nag had heard noise of quarrel, scuffle assaults and shouting. His nephew along with his wife and children were found absconding since last night itself. Informant believes that his nephew Madiray Ahir @ Sukka Nag has murdered his sister Charia Nag and his brother-in-law Badu Nag and after committing the murder, he has fled along with his wife and children. 10. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Silli Police Station Case No. 12 of 2021 was registered for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Police took up the investigation and on completion of the investigation, filed chargesheet No.02 of 2022 on 13.01.2022 under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge under two heads against the appellant was framed on 05.12.2022 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge, so framed, was read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thus the appellant was put on trial. 11. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Mangra Nag, P.W.2 Konta Nag, P.W.3 Bagnu Nag, P.W.4 Soma Purty (Informant), P.W.5 Deba Nag, P.W.6 Dr. Anshuman Sharma and P.W.7 Jitendra Tudu (police witness). 11. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Mangra Nag, P.W.2 Konta Nag, P.W.3 Bagnu Nag, P.W.4 Soma Purty (Informant), P.W.5 Deba Nag, P.W.6 Dr. Anshuman Sharma and P.W.7 Jitendra Tudu (police witness). The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence, which were marked exhibits: - Exhibit P-1/PW 1 Signature of Mangra Nag (PW 1) upon seizure list of blood stain bamboo Exhibit P-1/1/PW 2 Signature of Kanta Nag (PW 2) upon seizure list Exhibit P-1/2/PW 7 Seizure list of ‘danda’ of bamboo with blood stain and sample of blood of the deceased Badu Nag taken with cotton in writing and signature of Jitendra Tudu (PW 7) I.O. Exhibit P-2/PW 6 Postmortem report of deceased Badu Nag @ Badu Ahir in writing and signature of PW 6 namely, Dr. Anshuman Sharma Exhibit P-2/1/PW 6 Postmortem report of deceased Chariya Nag in writing and signature of PW 6 namely Dr. Anshuman Sharma Exhibit P-3/PW 7 Carbon copy of inquest report of deceased Badu Nag in writing and signature of Jitendra Tudu (PW 7) I.O. Exhibit P-3/1/PW 7 Carbon copy of inquest report of deceased Chariya Nag in writing and signature of Jitendra Tudu (PW 7) I.O. Exhibit P-4/PW 7 Written report of Informant Soma Purty in his own writing and signature Exhibit P-4/1/PW 7 Endorsement upon written report to register FIR in writing and signature of the then Officer-in-Charge Birbal Hembrom Exhibit P-5/PW 7 Formal F.I.R. under signature of the then Officer-inCharge Birbal Hembrom of Tebo P.S. Exhibit P-6/PW 7 Computerized Confessional statement of accused Madiray Ahir @ Sukka Nag under thumb impression of accused A1. Exhibit P-7 Biological report received from F.S.L., Ranchi Exhibit P-7/1 D.N.A. Report by received from F.S.L. Ranchi. 12. P.W.1 Mangra Nag has stated that the occurrence is of a year ago. In the morning his wife went to bring water, when she saw a person hanging from a Karanj Tree with a knot of lungi. Thereafter when he went to the place of occurrence along with the villagers, he saw that the body which was hanging was of Badu Nag. He stated that for last some days there used to be quarrel amongst Madiray Ahir (appellant) and Chariya Nag, due to which Madiray Ahir @ Sukka Nag has killed his mother and father namely Chariya Nag and Badu Nag. He stated that for last some days there used to be quarrel amongst Madiray Ahir (appellant) and Chariya Nag, due to which Madiray Ahir @ Sukka Nag has killed his mother and father namely Chariya Nag and Badu Nag. He has identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit P-1. He identified the accused through video conferencing. In his cross examination, he stated that he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence and deposed on the basis of what he has heard. P.W.2 Konta Nag is a seizure list witness. He has identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Exhibit P-1/1. He stated that he had heard that both the deceased were killed by the appellant. He identified the appellant through video conferencing. In cross examination, he has stated that on the paper which he has signed, something was written, but he does not know what was written on it. P.W.3 Bagnu Nag has stated that the deceased were killed by the appellant. He stated that he had seen the dead body of Chariya Nag at her home. There was strangulation mark on the neck of the body and there was a blood stained stick beside the dead body. He stated that he had seen the dead body of Badu Nag hanging from a Karanj Tree by a knot of lungi. He stated that the police had recorded his statement. In his cross examination he has stated that he had not seen any one killing the deceased. He has also not seen any injury on the bodies of the accused. P.W.4 Soma Purty is the informant in this case. He stated that deceased Chariya Nag and deceased Badu Nag are his sister and brother-in-law respectively. They were killed last year. He was informed about the incident by Mangra Nag on the next day morning. On receiving such information, when he went to his sister’s home, he found that Sukka Nag (appellant) along with his wife and children has absconded from the home and he saw that Badu Nag was hanging from a Karanj Tree by the knot of lungi. There were injury marks on his legs. It appears as if the injury was caused by stone. There were injury marks on his legs. It appears as if the injury was caused by stone. With the help of villagers he took the dead body of Badu Nag to his home where he saw that his sister Chariya Nag was also lying dead on a mat. It appeared from seeing her that she has been killed by assault on her neck. There was a mark on the front side of her neck. He stated that he had given the written report to the police, which was written by Birsa Bodra and he had put his thumb impression on the same. He identified the appellant through video conferencing. In his cross examination he has stated that he was informed by Mangra Nag that the appellant has killed both the deceased. He further stated that Mangra Nag had also not seen the appellant killing the deceased, rather he has expressed his suspicion. P.W.5 Deba Nag has stated that he knows both the deceased. They were killed by the appellant by assaulting with stick. When he went to the house of the deceased along with the villagers, he saw deceased Badu Nag lying dead outside his house and there was mark of injury on his chest and the dead body of deceased Chariya Nag was inside the house and there was mark of injury on her neck. Police had prepared the inquest report on which this witness had put his thumb impression. He identified the appellant through video conferencing. In his cross examination, he has stated that the police had come to the place of occurrence three days after the occurrence and on being asked by the police, he had put his thumb impression on the inquest report after three days. P.W.6 Dr. Anshuman Sharma had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Badu Nag @ Badu Ahir and had found the following: - Rigor mortis was absent in all four limbs. Body received in partially decomposed condition with maggots present on face, blistering and peeling of skin, epidermis eaten away in many places by Ants, marbling on skin present semen stain on pants present. External Findings- (i) 01 inch wide deep brown colour ligature mark passing all round the neck with upward deviation of ligature mark near right ear lobule with 01 inch x 01 inch wide impression bruise of knot present. External Findings- (i) 01 inch wide deep brown colour ligature mark passing all round the neck with upward deviation of ligature mark near right ear lobule with 01 inch x 01 inch wide impression bruise of knot present. (ii) Tongue congested and deviated to left side. No dried saliva mark could be observed. (iii) One bruise on each knee cap area present, superficial, ragged edges and dried blood present. (iv) One bruise of size 01 cm x 01 cm present on dorsum of each foot present, superficial with sharp margins, clotted blood present of dark brown colour. (v) One swelling of size 05 cm x 05 cm approx present on right side of neck above clavical and beside sterna notch present. Internal Findings - (i) Scalp and skull as per above external injury. (ii) Meninges-Congested. (iii) Brain- Congested, Spinal Cord elongated. (iv) Right side neck muscles showed haematoma and thinning of muscle on lower side of neck. (v) Plura- Congested (vi) Larynx – Congested (vii) Lungs – Congested (viii) Precordium- Normal (ix) Heart- Empty (x) Abdominal Wall- Normally distended (xi) Oral Cavity- Congested, tongue deviated to left side (xii) Stomach- Foul smelling liquid present (xiii) Small intestine- Fical smelling liquid present. (xiv) Large intestine- Feces present. (xv) Liver- Congested, Spleen- Congested, Kidney- Congested. (xvi) Urinary Bladder- Empty Cause of death- Mechanical asphyxia due to hanging. Time since death – Within 04 days with variation of 02 days Nature of injury- Antemortem. The postmortem report was marked as Exhibit P-2. He had also conducted postmortem examination upon the dead body of Chariya Nag and had found the following: - Rigor mortis was absent in all four limbs. Body received with facial swelling with bleeding from nostrils. Marbling blistering and peeling of skin. Both feet directed downwards. External Findings (i) Bleeding from nostrils present, fracture of nasal bones present. (ii) Bleeding from back of skull with cut of size 01 inch x 03 inch approx with tapering ends present, margin ragged with blood present. (iii) One 02 cm x 02 cm skin abrasion on left forearm above wrist present with clotted blood in the base, margins irregular. (iv) Blackening of skin around the neck with partial areas of skin excoriation present. Internal Findings (i) Left occipital bone and left parietal bone fractured with bleed in cranial cavity present along with liquefied brain matter. (ii) Nasal bone fractured. (iv) Blackening of skin around the neck with partial areas of skin excoriation present. Internal Findings (i) Left occipital bone and left parietal bone fractured with bleed in cranial cavity present along with liquefied brain matter. (ii) Nasal bone fractured. (iii) Stretched muscle in neck area with brownish discolouration present. (iv) Plura congested, Larynx congested. (v) Heart- Empty (vi) Lungs- Congested empty (vii) Oral Cavity- Tongue swollen and congested. (viii) Stomach- Blackish colour, putrified liquid present. (ix) Small intestine- Fical smelling liquid present. (x) Large intestine- Fical matter present. (xi) Liver spleen and Kidney congested. Cause of death- Due to head injury by hard and blunt object and mechanical asphyxia. Time since death – 04 days with variation of 02 days Nature of injury- Antemortem. The postmortem report was marked as Exhibit P-2/1. P.W.7 Jitendra Tudu is the investigating officer of this case. He stated that he had recorded Sanha No.17/2021 dated 19.10.2021 on the basis of the information received regarding the incident. On 20.10.2021 at 06.10 a.m. in the morning he along with the police force went to the house of Badu Nag where they saw dead body of a person at the door of the house and in the verandah one lady was lying dead, beside whom broken piece of blood stained bamboo stick was found lying. It was informed that dead person was Badu Nag @ Badu Ahir and the lady was Chariya Nag. He proved the Inquest Report, which was marked as Exhibit P-3 and P-3/1. He proved the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit P-1/2. He has given the boundary of the two places of occurrence. He has proved the written report and the endorsement made for registering the First Information Report which were marked Exhibits P-4 and P-4/1. He has proved the formal First Information Report, which was marked Exhibit P-5. He has proved the thumb impression of the appellant and his own signature on the confessional statement of the appellant, which was marked as Exhibit P-6. He has also stated about the other aspects of investigation including the Postmortem Report. 13. After closure of the prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the charges and claimed to be innocent. 14. He has also stated about the other aspects of investigation including the Postmortem Report. 13. After closure of the prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the charges and claimed to be innocent. 14. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and after going through the evidence, by a Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 5th December, 2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.334 of 2022, has held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him for the offence as detailed in paragraph 1 hereinbefore. 15. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 6 of this judgment. 16. We have gone through the evidence and the entire records. 17. From the evidence on record, we find that admittedly, there are no eye witness to the said occurrence. The only material to convict the appellant is that the appellant being son earlier used to quarrel and there was some dispute with the father and mother on the previous evening. No one in evidence has stated that this appellant was present in the village at the time of occurrence or a day before. None said that they saw this appellant quarrelling. Only on the basis of suspicion, this appellant has been made an accused in this case. Even the informant has deposed on the basis of suspicion that this appellant has committed the murder. It is well settled principle that on the basis of suspicion, no one can be convicted. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. This case is based on circumstantial evidence and the only circumstance is that there was quarrel between the deceased parents and their son and the appellant was found not present in the house when the body was detected. These two circumstances are too weak circumstances to convict the appellant. Since the appellant was not present in the house, all the witnesses presumed that he has committed murder of the deceased. An accused cannot be presumed to have committed the offence, rather the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubts, which is missing in this case. Solely on the basis of suspicion, this appellant has been made accused and the judgment of conviction has been passed, which should not have been done. 18. An accused cannot be presumed to have committed the offence, rather the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubts, which is missing in this case. Solely on the basis of suspicion, this appellant has been made accused and the judgment of conviction has been passed, which should not have been done. 18. Thus, in view of what has been held hereinbefore, we are inclined to allow this appeal and acquit the appellant. The impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 5th December, 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.334 of 2022 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges against him. He is directed to be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 19. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. I.A. No. 1684 of 2024 20. In view of the acquittal of the appellant by our judgment, this interlocutory application (I.A. No.1684 of 2024) is rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.