Judgment : ( Ramesh Sinha, CJ.) 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved, as both these appeals are clubbed together being arising out of a common crime vide impugned judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.19/2018, these appeals have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. It has been reflected from the impugned judgment that appellants-Madanlal Dhruv (A-4), Virendra Kosle (A-5) and Manharah Goswami (A-6) have been acquitted by the trial Court. 3. Appellant-Ramavtar Chakradhari (A-1) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.833/2021 and appellants-Narendra Prasad Shreevas (A-2) and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan (A-3) have preferred Criminal Appeal No.838/2021, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘ Cr.P.C .’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No.19/2018, by which the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants-Ramavtar Chakradhari (A-1), Narendra Prasad Shreewas (A-2) and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan (A-3) as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 4. Under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 4. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that, the appellants on or before 12.01.2018, near Senha tree on the old stairs of the Khallari temple hill situated at village Khallari within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khallari, District Mahasamund, had planned to murder deceased Jagdish Minj and sacrifice him for making money fall through witchcraft, and to incite deceased Jagdish Minj to bring the money by deceiving him that his money would be converted into Rs.1 Crore by the said act of falling, and instigated him to come to the incident site i.e. Khallari temple hill as also took the money brought by the deceased with dishonest intent and destroyed the evidence of the said crime. In furtherance of the said common intention, they asked for Rs.3 lakhs from deceased Jagdish Minj and lured him that his money would turn into Rs.1 Crore by the process of sorcery, upon which, Rs.3,01,500/- brought by him and in order to steal the money brought by deceased Jagdish Minj or to take away the money obtained by theft, they voluntarily caused dacoity by causing the death of Jagdish Minj and on the said date, time and place of the said incident, together formed a common intention to kill deceased Jagdish Minj as also offered him as a human sacrifice in order to extract money through witchcraft and in furtherance of the said common intention, by feeding poisonous insecticide to deceased Jagdish Minj, making him unconscious, they slit his throat with an iron axe and causing his death and killing him. 5. It is an admitted fact in the case that on 24.01.2018, accused Ramavtar Chakradhari were arrested on the charge of murder of Jagdish Minj at 13.10, Narendra Prasad Shreevas at 13.15, Mohd. Murtaza alias Bablu Khan at 13.20, Manharan Goswami at 13.30, Madanlal Dhruv at 13.40, Virendra Kumar Kosle at 13.50, duly informing the reasons for arrest in the arrest memo as per Ex.P./17 to Ex.P./22 respectively. Ravishankar Chakradhari and Arjun Sahu know the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari who lived in Mandir Hasaud in their locality. Murtaza alias Bablu Khan at 13.20, Manharan Goswami at 13.30, Madanlal Dhruv at 13.40, Virendra Kumar Kosle at 13.50, duly informing the reasons for arrest in the arrest memo as per Ex.P./17 to Ex.P./22 respectively. Ravishankar Chakradhari and Arjun Sahu know the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari who lived in Mandir Hasaud in their locality. Deceased Jagdish Minj and accused Virendra Kosle were colleagues in the Government School of village Tulsi and used to sit together during school hours and used to talk between them. Sudha Yadav (PW-18), Kumari Poonam Bais (PW-20) and Brahmanand Koram (PW-21) were also posted as Teachers in the Government School, Tulsi and the deceased Jagdish Minj and accused Virendra Kosle were posted in the same school and accused Virendra Kosle was working as Head Master. Sudha Yadav (PW-18) saw accused Virendra Kosle in school on 12.01.2018 at around 12.30 PM. Vedanand Kaushik (PW-23) and Neera Bai (PW-24) know accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas. Kamlal Sahu (PW-8) is a resident of village Jamgaon and he has a grocery shop in the same village, opposite to which is the residential house of accused Manharan Goswami. Kanija Fatima (PW-12) is the wife of accused Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan and Shahnaz Begum (PW-13) also knows accused Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan. 6. Further case of the prosecution, is that, complainant Kundan Sahu (PW-1) came to Police Station Khallari and lodged a report that the body of an unknown dead person, aged about 45 years was lying in a mutilated condition between the stones on Khallari Temple Hill, from which a foul smell was emanating. On the said report, Police Station Khallari registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C . and after informing the Police Stations of that area as also Border Police Stations, the case was compared with the missing person Jagdish Minj at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, the body identification panchnama proceedings were conducted by Om Prakash Kujur Mowa, Raipur. The said body was found to be of deceased Jagdish Minj, resident of St. Joseph, Amlidih, Raipur and was identified as Jagdish Minj by his brother-in-law. Thereafter, after body panchnama proceedings, the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. The said body was found to be of deceased Jagdish Minj, resident of St. Joseph, Amlidih, Raipur and was identified as Jagdish Minj by his brother-in-law. Thereafter, after body panchnama proceedings, the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. The examination was conducted by a team of doctors and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/34), the doctor found the neck of the body to be cut and there were injury marks on the head and declared the nature of death as homicidal. 7. Thereafter, an offence was registered bearing Crime No.15/2018 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’) against the unknown accused and investigation was taken up at the Police Station Khallari. During the investigation, after questioning the deceased Jagdish Minj's friends Virendra Kumar Kosle and Madanlal Dhruv and closely observing the call details as also CCTV camera footage, Virendra Kosle, Madanlal Dhruv, Ramavtar Chakradhari, Manharan Goswami, Mohd. Murtaza Khan and Narendra Prasad Shreevas were taken into police custody. Ramavtar, Mohd. Murtaza, Narendra Prasad Shreevas were interrogated thoroughly and a memorandum was prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in front of witnesses, in which the accused stated that in the past, they had performed the work of money rain by using witchcraft, in which they were not completely successful, and this time a human sacrifice would have to be done, only then the work of money rain would be successful. Thereafter, Virendra Kosle, Madanlal Dhruv, Ramavtar Chakradhari, Manrahan Goswami, Mohd. Murtaza Khan, Narendra Prasad Shreevas made a plan and were taking Jagdish Minj interested in the work of money rain and all of them stated that he would make a plan and perform human sacrifice and divide the amount brought by him amongst themselves. Under the plan, Jagdish Minj would get Rs.1 Crore on bringing Rs.3 Lacs and after deceiving him in a planned manner, on 12.01.2018, along with Narendra Prasad Shreevas, deceased Jagdish Minj would have to perform sorcery puja and told him that he would have to go to Khallari Temple Hill, made a ball of leaves and put oil on it and tie it with iron rods. When the money did not fall on the pretext of puja saying that the axe will be used, Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Mohd. When the money did not fall on the pretext of puja saying that the axe will be used, Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Mohd. Murtaza Khan, Virendra Kosle, Manharan Goswami, Madanlal Dhruv, by coming together and hatching a criminal conspiracy, on 12.01.2018, Ramavtar Chakrachari, Mohd. Murtaza Khan, Narendra Prasad Shreevas all three together committed the murder of a person by slitting his throat with an axe and hid the axe used in the murder in a bush, which was recovered and seized at a distance of 200 meters from the place of incident at the instance of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, a sharp iron axe (Katta) with blood on it and Rs.3 lakhs were seized at the instance of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas and a black coloured bag was seized at the instance of accused Mohd. Murtaza Khan. 8. Memorandum statement of appellant Narendra Prasad Shreevas has been recorded vide Ex.P/4, based upon which, one yellow cloths containing the cash amount and stone were seized vide Ex.P/8. Memorandum statement of appellant Ramavtar Chakradhari has been recorded vide Ex.P/11, based upon which, one Chapad was seized vide Ex.P/6 and shirt vide Ex.P/39 as well as memorandum statement of appellant Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan has been recorded vide Ex.P/12, based upon which, a black coloured bag was seized vide Ex.P/10. Activa of the deceased was also seized vide Ex.P/41. The appellants were arrested vide arrest memo vide Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/22. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and the blood was found on the articles seized i.e. Chapad, shirt and stone from the accused persons, the FSL report is Ex.P/94. 9. During the course of investigation, Section 120B of the IPC was added for hiding the dead body of the deceased under the stones. Accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas was identified by witness Kiran Chauhan, who was identified by the witness. Thus, on the basis of circumstantial evidence and evidence collected from the call details and statements of witnesses, a case was filed against accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Mohd. Murtaza Khan under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC and accused Virendra Kosle, Manharan Goswami, Madanlal Dhruv for hatching conspiracy. On the said basis, they were arrested and sent on judicial remand as they were found guilty for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC . 10. Murtaza Khan under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC and accused Virendra Kosle, Manharan Goswami, Madanlal Dhruv for hatching conspiracy. On the said basis, they were arrested and sent on judicial remand as they were found guilty for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC . 10. After the proceedings of arrest of the accused, other necessary investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahasamund, from where the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh received the case on transfer for trial. 11. After due investigation, all the appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in which they abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating inter-alia that they have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question. 12. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 46 witnesses, namely Kundan Sahu (PW-1), Deendayal Raut (PW-2), Mohan Singh Rajput (PW-3), Kiran Bai Chauhan (PW-4), Ratnesh Kumar Gupta (PW-5), Mrs. Asha Miz (PW-6), Sanjay Kumar Kadam (PW-7), Kamalal Sahu (PW-8), Togias Khes (PW-9), Ravi Shankar Chakradhari (PW-10), Arjun Sahu (PW-11), Kaneez Fatima (PW-12), Shahnaz Begum (PW-13). Sewak Ram (PW-14), Bodhi Ram (PW-15), Marianus Panna (PW-16), Mohan Rao Thackeray (PW-17), Mrs. Sudha Yadav (PW-18), Pramod Kumar Dhruv (PW-19), Miss Poonam Bais (PW-20), Brahmanand Korram (PW-21), Vimal Kumar Minj (PW- 22), Vedanand Kaushik (PW-23), Neerabai (PW-24), Dr. R.K. Kuruwanshi (PW-25), Dr. Revendra Sahu (PW-26), Bhangiram Dhruv (PW-27), Dolamani Sidar (PW-28), Ramkishun (PW-29), Neeraj Kumar Rajwada (PW-30), Hemsingh Chauhan (PW-31), Lakshat Sahu (PW-32), Shivanandan Rao (PW-33), Madhavram Bhosale (PW-34), Sudhir Kumar Mandpe (PW-35), Ramcharan Yadav (PW-36), Mrs. Nisha Tikariya Vaishnav (PW-37), Sonal Singh (PW-38), Sandhya Khare (PW-39), Gagan Sharma (PW- 40), Subhash Pawar (PW-41), Vijay Kumar Netam (PW-42), Sanjiv Nema (PW-43), Om Prakash Kujur (PW-44), Smt. Kamla Pusham Thakur (PW-45) and Krishna Sharma (PW-46) as well as exhibited 109 documents Exs.P/1 to P/109 including Articles P/1 to P/18. The defence has not examined, but exhibited 3 documents as Ex.D/1 to D/3 in their support. 13. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.06.2021, proceeded to convict the aforesaid accused persons for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as aforementioned, against which, these two criminal appeals have been preferred. The defence has not examined, but exhibited 3 documents as Ex.D/1 to D/3 in their support. 13. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.06.2021, proceeded to convict the aforesaid accused persons for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as aforementioned, against which, these two criminal appeals have been preferred. 14. Ms. Smita Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals would submit that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is illegal and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is not a single cogent reliable witness who can independently described the incident. She would further that the trial Court has failed to see that there are ingredient in the prosecution story to show that false story has been concocted against the appellant with an ulterior motive. According to the prosecution, the place of incident is a public place where so many people are working around it. She would also submit that the appellants have been convicted only on the basis of circumstantial evidence as in the present case, memorandum and seizure witnesses were turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and the present appellant has been made an accused only on the basis of call details and there is no evidence on record that the present appellants were in contact with someone. It has been contended that even in the missing report, Smt. Asha Minj has not named any of the accused persons and neither is there any mention of photographs of the deceased and the accused in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C . The said photographs are also not admissible in evidence. The said form has been prepared by manipulating the statements of the memorandum witnesses, hence it is also not admissible. It has been further contended that there is no any circumstantial evidence against the present appellants to prove that they were members of criminal conspiracy. The prosecution has not proved that upon phone call of the present appellants the deceased came at the place of incident. It has been further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not established intention and the role of the present appellants to commit murder of the deceased. The prosecution has not proved that upon phone call of the present appellants the deceased came at the place of incident. It has been further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not established intention and the role of the present appellants to commit murder of the deceased. It has been aruged that the case of the prosecution is fully based upon the circumstantial evidence, whereas chain of events are missing and are incomplete to prove the offence against the present appellants. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements/deposition of the prosecution witnesses, which has been overlooked by the trial Court. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering all incriminating materials and circumstances available against the accused persons rightly convicted them for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the instant criminal appeals being bereft of merits are liable to be dismissed looking to the commission of offence done by the accused persons. 16. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 17. At the outset, it would be relevant first to notice the questions for determination formulated by the learned trial Court for the trial, which states as under:- Findings of the trial Court:- 18. The learned trial Court, with regard to the questions framed regarding death of deceased- Jagdish Minj being homicidal in nature, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the postmortem report (Ex.P/34) and the statement of Dr. R.K. Kuruwanshi (PW-25) clearly came to the conclusion that the death of deceased- Jagdish Minj was homicidal in nature. The learned trial Court, with regard to the questions framed regarding death of deceased- Jagdish Minj being homicidal in nature, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the postmortem report (Ex.P/34) and the statement of Dr. R.K. Kuruwanshi (PW-25) clearly came to the conclusion that the death of deceased- Jagdish Minj was homicidal in nature. Further, the trial Court has held that all the accused persons have committed murder of deceased by deceiving him with the intention to kill him by committing human sacrifice as also committed dacoity by voluntarily causing the death of the deceased in order to steal the money brought by the deceased or to take away the money obtained by him and luring him with the promise of that Rs.3 lakhs would turn into Rs.1 Crore by the process of sorcery and feed him poisonous insecticide to deceased Jagdish Minj, making him unconscious, they slit his throat with an iron axe and causing his death, as such, appellants-Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Kumar Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120 (B), 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and acquitted from the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 364/34 and 395/34 of the IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. 19. Insofar as the accused Madanlal Dhruv, Virendra Kosle and Manharan Goswami are concerned, they have been charged with the crime on the basis of the disclosure statements of the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan. It is a fundamental principle of law that the confession given by one accused is not substantial evidence against the other accused and can be used against the other accused only when other evidence is available against the other accused and the court feels that the confession of crime should be used to support the other evidence, only then can the confession of crime be used against the other accused. Therefore, it is clear that Madanlal Dhruv, Virendra Kosle and Manharan Goswami were convicted only when other evidence is also available against them. Therefore, it is clear that Madanlal Dhruv, Virendra Kosle and Manharan Goswami were convicted only when other evidence is also available against them. In the present case, any evidence against the above three accused regarding conspiracy to murder the deceased, deceiving and calling him with the intention of killing by sacrificing him and voluntarily causing the death of the deceased in order to steal the money brought by the deceased or to take away the money obtained by him by stealing, committing robbery by killing the deceased and destroying the evidence is not available for prosecution. As such, the prosecution has completely failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences under Sections 120 (B), 364/34, 395/34, 302/34, 201/34 of the IPC against the accused Madanlal Dhruv, Virendra Kosle and Manharan Goswami, hence they have been acquitted of the charges of the crime by giving them benefit of doubt. 20. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , ( 1984) 4 SCC 116 , which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v. State of Haryana , (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v. State of Haryana , (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 22. Now questions ripped for consideration before us in these criminal appeals would be as under:- (i) Whether the learned trial Court is justified in holding that the death of deceased- Sunil Singh is homicidal in nature? (ii) Accused-appellants Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan called the deceased on the date of incident on the pretext of giving money by luring him that his amount of Rs.3 Lacs would turn into Rs.1 Crore by the process of sorcery puja. (iii) Accused-appellants Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan was having “motive” to commit murder of Jagdish Minj. (iv) Call details of the accused and the deceased. (iii) Accused-appellants Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan was having “motive” to commit murder of Jagdish Minj. (iv) Call details of the accused and the deceased. (v) On the basis of the memorandum statement of the accused, seizure of Chapad and stone used in the crime and the clothes worn at the time of the incident. (vi) As per FSL report, human blood was found in Chapad, stone and clothes.” 23. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Jagdish Minj was homicidal in nature ? 24. On behalf of the prosecution, a team of doctors were conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, one of the doctor, namely Dr. R.K. Kulvanshi has been examined as PW-25, who opined that cause of death seems to be cardio-respiratory arrest as asphyxia and hypovoleumic shock due to grievous (incised) injury on the neck and death was homicidal in nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Jagdish Minj was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 25. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P/34) of Dr. R.K. Kuruwanshi (PW-25) who conducted autopsy. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased Jagdish Minj was within the knowledge of the appellants, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C . Thus, burden of proof was on the appellants to explain such circumstance, which they failed to explain. 26. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. 26. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 27. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 28. In the light of these guiding principles, we will have to examine the present cases. 29. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it would reveal that the main circumstance on which the trial Judge found the appellants guilty of the crime is the recovery of various articles at their instances. The Trial Judge has further found that on the basis of memorandum statement of accused-Ramavtar Chakradhari, one Grey coloured Intex company mobile was seized vide Ex.P/13 as well as on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant Narendra Prasad Shreevas, one yellow cloths containing the cash amount and stone were seized vide Ex.P/8, on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant Ramavtar Chakradhari, one Chapad was seized vide Ex.P/6 and shirt vide Ex.P/39 as well as memorandum statement of appellant Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan, a black coloured bag was seized vide Ex.P/10 and as per FSL report (Ex.P/94), blood was found on Chhapad (Article-B) seized from appellant Ramavtar Chakradhari, stone (Article-E) seized from appellant Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Full-shirt (Article-F) seized from appellant Ramavtar Chakradhari. Call Detail Records (CDRs) and tower location reports of the mobile numbers used by the deceased Jagdish Minj (9826191434), accused Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan (9685762348), accused Ramavtar Chakradhari (8349861165), acquitted accused Virendra Kosle (8770679811) and acquitted accused Manharagan Goswami (9754360121) for the period from 01.11.2017 to 01.08.2018 were also obtained. 30. Investigating Officer Smt. Kamla Pusam Thakur (PW-45) has stated in her Court statement that she was posted as Inspector/Station In-charge at Police Station Khallari from 24.02.2017 to 26.06.2018. On 21.01.2018, Kundan Sahu (PW-1), a resident of Khallari, came to Khallari Police Station and informed that the body of an unknown person was lying between a stone and a bush on Khallari hill. As per the information given by Kundan Sahu, she registered a case intimation No.03/2018 on 21.01.2018 vide Ex.P/1. After registering the case intimation, she took the informant Kundan Sahu and other staff and went to Khallari hill where the body was found, but by then, it was night and she deployed constables from the police station on Khallari hill for the safety of the body. Since it was night, Panchnama and other proceedings could not be conducted. On the second day i.e. 22.01.2018, for the Panchnama proceedings of the deceased, the Panchas, accompanying staff and the family members of the unknown deceased were taken and the process of identification of the body was started at Khallari hill. During the identification proceedings, the body was identified by the family member of the deceased, Om Prakash Kujur, as his brother-in-law Jagdish Minj, aged about 45 years, Joseph Town, Amlidih, Raipur. The identifier Om Prakash Kujur identified the body by looking at the Kanthi Mala worn around the neck of the deceased, the face of the deceased, his clothes, shoes and watch. Identification proceedings Panchnama was Ex.P/31. Thereafter, notice was given to the witnesses and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased which was stuck between the stones but was clearly visible was taken out from and kept nearby, after which, she inspected the dead body thoroughly. Identification proceedings Panchnama was Ex.P/31. Thereafter, notice was given to the witnesses and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased which was stuck between the stones but was clearly visible was taken out from and kept nearby, after which, she inspected the dead body thoroughly. On detailed inspection of the body of deceased Jagdish Minj, it was found that there were marks of injury caused by a sharp weapon on the neck of the deceased, the neck of the deceased and both his hands were tied with a black towel, there were marks of injury on the head of the deceased as well, there were marks of injury on the back, hands and both the body parts of the deceased. There was a mark of colour on the body and the Panchayat had advised for conducting a postmortem examination stating that the deceased had been murdered. After the proceedings of the map Panchayatnama Ex.P/33, Constable Pramod Kumar sent to the Community Health Center, while writing the written complaint Ex.P/56 for conducting the postmortem of the dead body. Then, the medical officer and his team from the Community Health Center Bagbahara reached to the spot at Khallari hill and postmortem of the dead body was conducted by the medical officer on the spot itself. After the postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his family members i.e. Smt. Asha Minj and Omprakash Kujur. On the same date i.e., 22.01.2018, she seized blood-soaked soil and plain soil from near the incident site in front of witnesses and prepared seizure memo vide Ex.P/42. After the postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his family members i.e. Smt. Asha Minj and Omprakash Kujur. On the same date i.e., 22.01.2018, she seized blood-soaked soil and plain soil from near the incident site in front of witnesses and prepared seizure memo vide Ex.P/42. A pair of white and black lined shoes was seized near the crime scene in front of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/43, a wrist watch with the time stopped at 4 o'clock was seized from a distance of about 150 meters from the crime scene where the body of the deceased was found vide seizure memo Ex.P/44 and one white coloured Activa bearing registration No.CG-04/GN/9255 of deceased Jagdish Minj was seized from below the Khallari temple in front of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/41 On receiving the short postmortem report of the deceased and on the basis of inquest, prima facie finding of murder of deceased Jagdish Minj, she registered a crime under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC under Crime No.15/2018 at Khallari Police Station against unknown accused, on the basis of which, First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P/89. During investigation, on the basis of information received from the informer and observation of CCTV footage, suspect Narendra Prasad Shreevas was seen with the deceased and on the complainant Om Prakash Kujur telling that the deceased believed in witchcraft i.e., Jharan Pooja Paath & Tantra Mantra and was in contact with his friends Manharan Goswami, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Ramavatar Chakradhari, Bablu @ Mohd. Murtaza, Madanlal Dhruv Constable and Virendra Kosle etc. for last six months to one year. On the information given by Om Prakash Kujur in person over telephone, on the basis of suspicion, she went to village Jamgaon Temple Hasaud, Tulsi, Baradera, Birgaon, Rajendra Nagar Amalidih for investigation of the above suspects and after investigation, on finding the suspects Ramavatar Chakradhari and Manrahan Goswami, she interrogated them strictly and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, Ramavatar Chakradhari and Manrahan Goswami were taken into custody and interrogated. Ramavtar Chakradhari told about Bablu @ Mohd. Murtaza, then she took Mohd. Murtaza into custody and interrogated him. Then Ramavtar and Manharan Goswami told that Virendra Kosle, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Madanlal Dhruv are also involved in the crime. Ramavtar Chakradhari told about Bablu @ Mohd. Murtaza, then she took Mohd. Murtaza into custody and interrogated him. Then Ramavtar and Manharan Goswami told that Virendra Kosle, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Madanlal Dhruv are also involved in the crime. It was told by them that all of them together have been doing the work of witchcraft for about six months to one year and if the deceased shows more interest, then on the date of the incident, Rs.1 Crore would turn from Rs.3 Lacs and for the said purpose, Rs.1500/- will be required separately and along with that oil, Bandan, catechu, chapad and other Puja material will be required. They called the deceased to Khallari Temple Hill to make all the preparations. It was also told by the accused that even before this, they had done work of making waterfall worth Rs.5,000/- in the presence of the deceased, due to which, confidence of the deceased had increased and on the date of incident, they had called the deceased to Khallari Temple Hill with the materials mentioned by the accused. After the proceedings, she recorded the memorandum statement of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, as per his information, on 24.01.2018 at 9 o'clock in front of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal below Khallari temple, in which he told that he does exorcism and he along with other accused called deceased Jagdish Minj to Khallari hill with Rs.3 Lacs and stated that Rs.1 Crore would be available in exchange of Rs. 3 Lacs and further, stated that if the money is not available then he and other accused together killed Jagdish by slitting his throat with a Chapad. Accused Ramavtar Chakradhari also told that Narendra Shreevas ran away towards the bushes with the money and Bablu ran away with the bag, mobile, purse and he hid the Chapad used in the incident in the bushes. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, he had taken out the axe amongst the bushes and leaves about 100 meters from the place where the dead body of the deceased was found, she recovered the said axe in the presence of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal and prepared recovery panchanama vide Ex.P/5. 31. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, he had taken out the axe amongst the bushes and leaves about 100 meters from the place where the dead body of the deceased was found, she recovered the said axe in the presence of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal and prepared recovery panchanama vide Ex.P/5. 31. She further deposed that on 24.01.2018, memorandum statement of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas was recorded, as per his statement, under Khallari temple in front of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal, in which he had told that he does exorcism and Manharan Goswami had introduced him to co-accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, Madanlal Dhruv, Teacher Virendra Kosle. He had also told that he and other accused were not successful in the money-making last time and this time, they all conspired and called deceased Jagdish on 12.01.2018 with Rs.3 Lacs and accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas brought the deceased to Khallari temple on Activa scooter. Where all the accused first performed sorcery Puja and then distributed the Prasad among themselves and ate it and also fed it to the deceased. Thereafter, when deceased Jagdish started becoming unconscious, he (Narendra Shreevas) tied the hands of the deceased and Bablu @ Murtaza held both his legs, after which, with the Chapad brought by Bablu @ Murtaza, Ramavtar Chakradhari, slit the throat of deceased Jagdish Minj. Thereafter, they took out money, mobile and purse from his pockets and dragged his body and threw it on a stone. Narendra Prasad Shreevas also told that while the other accused were dividing the amount of Rs.3 Lacs and Rs.1500/- brought by Jagdish Minj among themselves, he heard some shouting in the bushes and in a hurry, he tied the said amount in a yellow cloth and hid it somewhere between the stones and came down the hill through the footpath and accused Bablu took the purse and bag and went away by another route. After that, she recovered the cash tied in the yellow cloth at the instance of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas vide recovery panchnama Ex.P/7. The yellow cloth was opened and the money tied in it was counted. After that, she recovered the cash tied in the yellow cloth at the instance of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas vide recovery panchnama Ex.P/7. The yellow cloth was opened and the money tied in it was counted. In one bundle, there were fifty notes of two thousand rupees, in another bundle, eleven notes of two thousand rupees, in another bundle one hundred and fifty nine notes of five hundred rupees, the total amount was found to be Rs.3,01,500/-. On the same date, i.e. 24.01.2018, a memorandum statement of accused Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan was recorded, as per his statement, under Khallari temple in front of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal, he had told that he is a resident of Birgaon Raipur and two years before, he used to live in a tree near accused Ramavtar and gone to get the money extracted through black magic and he himself was engaged in the work of extracting money through black magic. Earlier, he and accused Ramavtar were not successful in the task of extracting money, thereafter, he along with other co-accused made a plan and called deceased Jagdish Minj to Khallari hill for extracting money, where Jagdish Minj was murdered by those people as per pre-planned plan and when the money was being distributed, on hearing the sound of bells from the bushes, Narendra Prasad Shreevas ran away with the money through another route and he (Bablu @ Murtaza) hid the deceased's bag, clothes, oil, mobile and purse in the bushes and went down the hill. After the proceedings, she seized Grey coloured sweater, pink coloured towel, cloth and two oil cans, a broken silver coloured mobile, RC book and driving licence of deceased Jagdish found inside the bag at the instance of accused Bablu @ Murtaza in front of witnesses and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/10. On 24.01.2018, a Grey colour Intex mobile with SIM card bearing mobile number 8349861165 was seized from accused Ramavtar Chakradhari in the presence of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal vide seizure memo Ex. P/13 as also one golden coloured mobile with Micromax company was seized, in which a SIM card of mobile number 9754360121 was installed vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. On 24.01.2018, a Grey colour Intex mobile with SIM card bearing mobile number 8349861165 was seized from accused Ramavtar Chakradhari in the presence of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal vide seizure memo Ex. P/13 as also one golden coloured mobile with Micromax company was seized, in which a SIM card of mobile number 9754360121 was installed vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. One golden coloured Oppo company mobile phone with SIM number 9981728705 was seized from accused Madanlal Dhruv in the presence of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal vide seizure memo Ex.P/15 and a golden colour Vivo company mobile phone with SIM number 9754817071 was seized from accused Virendra Kosle in the presence of witnesses Mohan Singh and Deendayal vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. The mobile phone of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas, which he had told was thrown on the hill after the incident, was searched on the hill along with witnesses Mohan Rao Thackeray and Kudan Sahu, but the said mobile phone was not found. On 30.01.2018, during the investigation, the house of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari at Mandir Hasaud Ravanbhatha Junadih was thoroughly inspected in the presence of witnesses Ravi Shankar Chakradhari and Arjun Sahu regarding the clothes worn by accused Ramavtar Chakradhari on the date of incident, upon which, there are blood like stains on the right and left sleeves of the said shirt near the wrist and hand, which was seized vide Ex.P/38. On 30.01.2018, the house of accused Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan in village Birgaon, Ward No. 28 was searched in the presence of witnesses Khalil Ansari and accused's wife Kaneez Fatima and during search, no clothes were found in his house and on being questioned about the clothes, he told that he had burnt the clothes which he was wearing on the date of the incident and had thrown the burnt ashes somewhere. On the same date i.e., 30.01.2018, she reached to the house of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas at Dharampur Ward No. 07, Geevra Basti, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba and in front of witnesses Neera Bai Prajapati and Vedanand Kaushik, she enquired about the clothes worn by him on the date of incident and inspected them thoroughly. He had told that he had burnt the clothes worn on the date of incident in the garbage dumping pit on the second day of the incident and spread the ashes here and there. 32. He had told that he had burnt the clothes worn on the date of incident in the garbage dumping pit on the second day of the incident and spread the ashes here and there. 32. She also deposed in her Court statement that on 05.02.2018, a complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund for obtaining the tower location and CDR of the deceased's mobile numbers 9926191434 7987425355 and the accused's mobile numbers 8770679811, 9685762348 8349861165, 9669768933, 9981728705, 9754360121 vide Ex.P/73. During the investigation on 09.02.2018, the medical officer Bagbahara sent the iron Chapad used in the incident to CHC Bagbahara for examination and sent a report for examination about whether there is a blood stained on the Chapad or not. On 20.02.2018, the call details of mobile number 9926191434 were sent to the nodal officer of Idea Company Raipur. On 27.02.2018, she sent a complaint to CHC Bagbahara (Ex.P/60) regarding the stone seized, which had a blood like stained on it and the lined shirt worn by accused Ramavtar Chakradhari at the time of the incident, which had a blood like stained on its sleeve, for the purpose of inquiry that the said stone and shirt have blood stained on it. For the dead body panchanama at the scene of the incident, she got the photograph of the body of the deceased Jagdish Minj taken from Khallari. The photographs were seized vide Article A-13 to Article A-18, in which it is clearly visible that the deceased was murdered by slitting his throat. On 29.01.2018, she seized the photocopy of the written application submitted by accused Virendra Kosle and deceased Jagdish Minj together in relation to taking earned leave from the Primary School from 12.01.2018 to 31.01.2018 vide seizure memo Ex.P/45. On 31.01.2018, she seized the lined shirt of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari which had blood stained on the wrist of left and right sleeves as well as blood stained under the pocket vide Ex.P/39. On 19.02.2018 and 27.02.2018, the seized articles were sent to FSL Raipur for examination through the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund vide Ex.P/91 and Ex.P/92 and chemical test report was called for in respect of the internal organs of the deceased like lungs, liver, kidney, spleen etc. On 19.02.2018 and 27.02.2018, the seized articles were sent to FSL Raipur for examination through the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund vide Ex.P/91 and Ex.P/92 and chemical test report was called for in respect of the internal organs of the deceased like lungs, liver, kidney, spleen etc. vide Ex.P/93, according to which, Article-A (pieces of heart, lungs, liver, kidney and spleen of deceased Jagdish Minj) and Article-B (stomach, small and large intestine of deceased Jagdish Minj) were found to contain pyrefoil pesticide cypermethrin and Article-C was found to contain pyrefoil pesticide cypermethrin. It has been found that there is no chemical poison in the salt ball of C. The FSL test report was sought after examining the seized articles, such as ‘A’ (jacket worn by deceased Jagdish Minj), ‘B’ (Chapad), ‘C’ (blood stained soil), ‘D’ (plain soil), ‘E’ (stone) and ‘F’ (full shirt of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari) and according to the FSL report (Ex.P/94), human blood has been found in ‘A’ (jacket worn by deceased Jagdish Minj), ‘B’ (Chapad), ‘C’ (blood stained soil), ‘E’ (stone) and ‘F’ (full shirt of accused Ramavtar), out of which, ‘C’ and ‘E’ contained, blood of "O" group and the blood group found in Articles ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘F’ could not be classified. On 20.02.2018, she had written a written complaint to the Tehsildar Bagbahara for identification proceedings of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas in jail vide Ex.P/72 and had taken permission from Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund for identification of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas vide Ex.P/95. On 24.03.2018, in the hard disk of deceased Jagdish Minj as well as accused Manharan Goswami, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, Virendra Kosle and Madanlal Dhruv are seen drinking tea at the same table. Upon producing the photographs taken out from the hard disks and upon presenting a black coloured hard disk number seagate pin1k9ap-502, sin na 7r5hbgn emko of deceased Jagdish Minj, it was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P/20. Thereafter, on 24.01.2018, Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, Manharan Goswami, Madanlal Dhruv and Virendra Kumar Kosle were arrested as per arrest memo vide Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/22. 33. So far as authenticity of the call detail reports and issuance of certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is concerned, the certificate has not been provided. The call details of deceased Jagdish Minj, accused persons-Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, Manharan Goswami, Madanlal Dhruv and Virendra Kumar Kosle were arrested as per arrest memo vide Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/22. 33. So far as authenticity of the call detail reports and issuance of certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is concerned, the certificate has not been provided. The call details of deceased Jagdish Minj, accused persons-Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan, Virendra Kosle, Ramavtar Chakradhari and Manharan Goswami between the period from 01.11.2017 to 01.08.2018 are as under :- 01- vfHk;qDr fojsUnz dkslys ds laca/k esa dz0 frfFk Lke; fdlus dky fd;k fdldks dky fd;k Ykksds’ku 01 27@11@2017 10-39] 17-53 fojsUnz dkslys 8770679811 e`rd txnh’k feat 9826191434 02 01@08@2018 8-11] 9-51 e`rd txnh’k feat 9826191434 fojsUnz dkslys 8770679811 03 01@11@2018 18-39] 20-40 ¼nks dky½ e`rd txnh’k feat 9826191434 fojsUnz dkslys 8770679811 04 01@08@2018 8-11] 9-51 e`rd txnh’k feat 9826191434 fojsUnz dkslys 8770679811 05 01@08@2018 18-39] 20-40 e`rd txnh’k feat 9826191434 fojsUnz dkslys 8770679811 02- vfHk;qDr eksg] eqrZtk ,oa jke vorkj pdz/kkjh ds laca/k esa 01 01@11@2017 8-51 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 02 03@11@2017 12-00 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 03 09@01@2018 11-23 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku NsMh[ksMh iksLV vkfQl eafnj glkSn 04 11@01@2018 19-41 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 05 13@01@2018 16-57 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku eafnj glkSn jk;iqj 06 14@01@2018 16-52 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku eafnj glkSn jk;iqj 07 09@01@2018 11-23 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 08 12@01@2018 19-26 jkevorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 03- vfHk;qDr eugj.k xksLOkkeh ,oa jke vorkj ds laca/k esa 01 02@11@2017 16-25 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 02 02@11@2017 16-43] 16-50 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 03 03@11@2017 9-27 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 04 09@01@2018 16-00 cts eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku NsMh[ksMh iksLV vkWfQl eafnj glkSn 05 09@01@2018 16-02 cts jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku fu;j vkehZ ,fj;k ekuk dSai ftyk jk;iqj 06 10@01@2018 16-26] 17-44 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 01- eafnjglkSn ftyk jk;iqj 02- Nsjh[ksMh iksLV vkWfQl eafnj glkSn 07 12@01@2018 11-48] 12-25] 12-57 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku eafnj glkSn ftyk jk;iqj 08 13@01@2018 08-07] 12-22] 16-04 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku 01- eafnjglkSn 02- jkokHkkBk jk;iqj 03- eafnjglkSn jk;iqj 09 14@01@2018 16-54 jke vorkj pdz/kkjh 8349861165 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 vfHk;qDr jkevorkj pdz/kkjh dk yksds’ku eaafnjglkSn jk;iqj 04- vfHk;qDr eksg- eqrZtk ,oa eugj.k xksLokeh ds laca/k esa 01 21@01@2018 10-57 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 02 17@01@2018 8-42 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 03 16@01@2018 12-04 eksg0 eqrZtk 9685762348 eugj.k xksLokeh 9754360121 34. The call detail records as well as tower location presented in the case have been examined. On examining the same, it is revealed that from 01.11.2017 to 01.08.2018, the deceased Jagdish Minj and some of the accused were in continuous conversations through the mobile phones. Thus, on the date of incident, it is established that accused persons had several contacts with deceased Jagdish Minj due to which this statement of prosecution witnesses get strength that accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Ramavtar Chakradhari and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan had called the deceased by luring him with the promise of that Rs.3 lakhs would turn into Rs.1 Crore by the process of sorcery and feed him poisonous insecticide to deceased Jagdish Minj, making him unconscious, they slit his throat with a Chapad and causing his death. 35. Thus, from the above analysis of evidence, the fact is established beyond doubt that all the accused and the deceased Jagdish Minj used to talk amongst themselves about earning money through witchcraft and the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and conspired to sacrifice the deceased by luring him with the promise of earning money through sorcery puja as also conspired to kill him by feeding him pesticides. 36. The documentary evidence of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Section 65-A can be proved only in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B. An electronic record shall not be admitted in evidence unless requirement under Section 65-B is satisfied as discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantrayal & Ors, (2020) 7 SCC 1 37. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal , (2015) 11 SCC 178 while considering with the issue of admissibility and relevancy of telephonic conversation made between the persons, as evidence, in paragraph 30 to 33 has observed as under:- “30. Apart from telephonic conversation, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to bring home that first accused hatched a conspiracy. There is no evidence to prove as to how the appellants 2 and 3 ( Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) had gone to the place of occurrence and what was their subsequent conduct. Apart from telephonic conversation, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to bring home that first accused hatched a conspiracy. There is no evidence to prove as to how the appellants 2 and 3 ( Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) had gone to the place of occurrence and what was their subsequent conduct. Their presence near the scene of occurrence could have been established by the prosecution either by examining some witnesses near and around the place of occurrence or by proving the location of the calls so as to establish the proximity of the accused with the scene of occurrence. Apart from the extract of the call records, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establish the conspiracy. 31. Apart from telephonic conversation, prosecution also relied upon recoveries made pursuant to the confessional statement of the appellants 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia). Pursuant to the statement of Siddique Mia one TVS Fiero red colour motor cycle bearing No. WB-54B/8245 with its key and nokia mobile handset (phone No.9932345230) were seized under Ext.17/3. Pursuant to the statement of Mustaque Mia nokia mobile handset having connection No. 9932705533, one gold finger ring in the shape of a flower with inscription of letter ‘Anjali’, and silver made chain with one Amethist and red coral fitted with it were seized under Ext. 18/3. Recoveries made and seizure list were sought to be proved by examination of PW17-Uttam Mondal. PW17 had deposed that he knew deceased Anjali. PW17 was then employed in the hotel run by Bhagyadhar Dhibar which was owned by Anjali. In his evidence PW17 stated that in January 2009, two or three gentlemen came to his hotel and took his signature and that he did not know why his signatures were being taken. Though PW17 identified his signatures in the seizure list, evidence of PW17 no way establishes recoveries being made at the instance of the accused 2 and 3. Evidence of PW17 is far from convincing and is not of much assistance to the prosecution as he has not clearly spoken about the recoveries and the seizure list. The gold ring and silver made chain recovered were also not shown to the other witnesses for being identified as that of Anjali. No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the recovery of objects and the seizure list. 32. The gold ring and silver made chain recovered were also not shown to the other witnesses for being identified as that of Anjali. No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the recovery of objects and the seizure list. 32. So far as the complicity of fourth accused-Durga Sutradhar, the prosecution mainly relied upon the call record and judicial confession of Durga recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum (Ext.26). Prosecution relied upon the recovery a notebook seized from the possession of appellant Durga Sutradhar where she has written Kiriti’s phone number clandestinely coded as ‘Dadu’. Ext. 30 call records of Kiriti Pal phone also revealed that there were number of calls from Kiriti Pal to fourth appellant. Like in the case of appellants No. 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) apart from telephone calls, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of fourth accused-Durga Sutradhar. Insofar as the judicial confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C ., it is not an inculpatory statement; but it is only to the effect of showing the subsequent conduct of A-1 Kiriti Pal in threatening Durga Sutradhar– fourth appellant not to disclose anything to the police. In our view, neither the telephone calls between the first appellant-Kiriti Pal and Durga Sutradhar-fourth appellant nor her confessional statement by themselves would be sufficient to establish the guilt of fourth appellant. 33. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court must adopt a very conscious approach and should record conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. All the links forming complete chain must be firmly established by the prosecution. Each link taken separately may just suggest suspicion but such suspicion itself may not take the place of proof and not sufficient to convict the accused. All the circumstances must be firmly established and must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt. But that is not to say that the prosecution must meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched it may be. As discussed earlier, the telephonic calls and the recovery may raise suspicion against the accused but mere suspicion itself cannot take the place of proof. But that is not to say that the prosecution must meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched it may be. As discussed earlier, the telephonic calls and the recovery may raise suspicion against the accused but mere suspicion itself cannot take the place of proof. In our view, evidence adduced by the prosecution against appellants 2 and 3 (Siddique Mia and Mustaque Mia) do not form a complete chain connecting the accused with the crime and the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Likewise, conviction of fourth appellant-Durga Sutradhar under Section 120B cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.” 38. The prosecution is required to prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to complete the chain of circumstance to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to establish that all the links in the chain of circumstances are complete leading inescapably to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused leaving out any possibility of innocence, which the prosecution has proved in the present case. 39. In the present case, memorandum statement of appellant Narendra Prasad Shreevas has been recorded vide Ex.P/4, based upon which, one yellow cloths containing the cash amount and stone were seized vide Ex.P/8, on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant Ramavtar Chakradhari vide Ex.P/11, one Chapad was seized vide Ex.P/6 and shirt vide Ex.P/39 as well as on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan vide Ex.P/12, a black coloured bag was seized vide Ex.P/10. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination, which were marked as ‘A’ (jacket worn by deceased Jagdish Minj), ‘B’ (Chapad), ‘C’ (blood stained soil), ‘D’ (plain soil), ‘E’ (stone) and ‘F’ (full shirt of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari) and according to the FSL report (Ex.P/94), human blood has been found in ‘A’ (jacket worn by deceased Jagdish Minj), ‘B’ (Chapad), ‘C’ (blood stained soil), ‘E’ (stone) and ‘F’ (full shirt of accused Ramavtar), out of which, ‘C’ and ‘E’ contained, blood of "O" group and the blood group found in Articles ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘F’ could not be classified. 40. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Vs. 40. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2012) 6 SCC 107 had occasion to deal with such nature of evidence wherein it held that it is quite common that based on admissible portion of the statement of the accused whenever and wherever recoveries are made, the same are admissible in evidence and it is for the accused in those situations to explain to the satisfaction of the court as to the nature of recoveries and as to how they came into possession or for planting the same at the places from where they were recovered. That part of the statement which does not in any way implicate the accused but is mere statement of facts would only amount to mere admissions which can be relied upon for ascertaining the other facts which are intrinsically connected with the occurrence, while at the same time, the same would not in any way result in implicating the accused in the offence directly. 41. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640 has observed that the discovery of facts under Section 27 information regarding other accused persons, to establish charge of conspiracy, in furtherance of common intention would be admissible. The Supreme Court in such case at para 16, 17 & 18 has held as under:- “16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottayha v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 and held thus : (Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 , SCC p. 704, paras 125-27) “125. We are of the view that Kottaya case [ AIR 1947 PC 67 ] is an authority for the proposition that “discovery of fact” cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted supra was highlighted in several decisions of this Court. 127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000) 6 SCC 269 . Thomas J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35) 35 ...The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.' In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828 , Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression “fact discovered” in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case, AIR 1947 PC 67 . The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, para 13) 13...Now it is fairly settled that the expression ‘fact discovered’ includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 ; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [1962 Supp (2) SCR 830]).” 17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu AIR 2000 SC 1691 the statement made by the accused that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading to the discovery of a fact that accused had carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus : (SCC pp. 282-83, paras 35-38) “35. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. 36. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered”. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle. 37. How did the particular information led to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the Investigating Officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot. 38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji Section 27 that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent.” 18. In Ismail v. Emperor AIR 1946 Sind 43 it was held that where as a result of information given by the accused another co-accused was found by the police the statement by the accused made to the Police as to the whereabouts of the co-accused was held to be admissible under section 27 as evidence against the accused.” 42. The Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12 has defined the ‘custody’. It held that the expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police. 43. The Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence. 44. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as applying the judicial precedents rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, it is established beyond doubt that all the accused and the deceased Jagdish Minj used to talk amongst themselves about earning money through witchcraft and the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and conspired to sacrifice the deceased by luring him with the promise of earning money through sorcery puja as also conspired to kill him by feeding him pesticides. On the basis of memorandum statements of accused Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Rs.3,01,500/- of deceased Jagdish Minj in a yellow coloured cloth and a stone used in the murder were recovered, on the memorandum statement of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, iron knife used in the murder was recovered and according to memorandum statement of accused Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, a black coloured bag containing sweater, towel, gamchha, cloth, two oil cans, broken mobile, RC book of the deceased, Aadhar card of the deceased, driving licence of the deceased were seized, in which, presence of human blood in the seized articles were confirmed by FSL report vide Ex.P/94. Similarly, presence of pyrepidemic insecticide cypermefin in viscera pieces of the deceased vide Article Ex-A and Ex.-B has been confirmed in FSL report vide Ex.P/93, which has not been denied by the accused and proved by the prosecution beyond doubt against the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan. In search panchnama Ex.P/38, full shirt with human blood has been found from the room of accused Ramavtar and in search panchnama Ex.P/40, statement has been made regarding burning the clothes worn by accused Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan on the date of arrest and throwing the burnt ashes somewhere. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan. In search panchnama Ex.P/38, full shirt with human blood has been found from the room of accused Ramavtar and in search panchnama Ex.P/40, statement has been made regarding burning the clothes worn by accused Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan on the date of arrest and throwing the burnt ashes somewhere. Similarly, it has been stated in the search panchnama Ex.P/55 regarding burning the clothes worn by Narendra Prasad Shreevas on the date of incident in the garbage dumping pit and spreading the ashes from house to house. These are all the circumstances which have been proved by the prosecution in a systematic manner against the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Mohd. Murtaza and Bablu Khan beyond all doubts. Although the evidence of call details is not in favour of the prosecution, but it is not possible to have committed the said criminal act without the collusion of the minds of the said three accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas, Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, which is also proved by the above circumstantial evidence. The circumstances in this case which have been proved against the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, under all human possibilities that the said accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan are the persons who hatched a conspiracy to murder deceased Jagdish Minj and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they killed him by feeding him insecticide and hitting him on his neck with an iron axe, thereby causing his death and after the murder, with the intention of covering themselves from legal punishment, they destroyed the dead body of the deceased and other evidences and thus, the prosecution has proved a total of 6 circumstances against the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan beyond reasonable doubt. 45. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has successfully proven its case by linking the circumstances and establishing that the facts proved are consistent only with the guilt of the accused persons and there is no reasonable basis for the conclusion that the accused persons are innocent. Therefore, based on the complete chain of events and the circumstances proved against the accused persons, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons namely Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Therefore, based on the complete chain of events and the circumstances proved against the accused persons, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons namely Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan had formed a common intention to commit the murder of deceased Jagdish Minj on 12.01.2018, and in pursuance of that intention, they killed Jagdish Minj by feeding the insecticide as also slitting his neck with Chapad and caused his death, and then tried to destroy the evidence of Jagdish Minj’s murder by hiding the money and stone under the bushes. Similarly, it is also established beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons that they had committed the murder of Jagdish Minj. 46. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above- stated judgments, evidence of investigating officer Smt. Kamla Pusam Thakur (PW-45), postmortem report (Ex.P/34), evidence of Dr. R.K. Kuruwanshi (PW-25) and as per FSL report (Ex.P/94), blood was found on Articles- ‘A’ (jacket worn by deceased Jagdish Minj), ‘B’ (Chapad), ‘C’ (blood stained soil), ‘D’ (plain soil), ‘E’ (stone) and ‘F’ (full shirt of accused Ramavtar Chakradhari) and also, human blood has been found in ‘A’ (jacket worn by deceased Jagdish Minj), ‘B’ (Chapad), ‘C’ (blood stained soil), ‘E’ (stone) and ‘F’ (full shirt of accused Ramavtar), out of which, ‘C’ and ‘E’ contained, blood of "O" group as well as the blood group found in Articles ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘F’ could not be classified seized from the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan, considering the memorandum statements of the accused / appellants and the finding recorded by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference of this Court. 47. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we find that there is sufficient evidence on record. All the circumstances linked properly and duly establish the guilt of appellants beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty for committing murder of the deceased Jagdish Minj. Hence, we are inclined to endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence as well as the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, we are inclined to endorse the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence as well as the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 120 (B), 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC as well as the sentence imposed upon the, by the learned trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 48. For the foregoing reasons, both the criminal appeals being CRA No. 833/2021 and CRA No.838/2021, devoid of merit and are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 49. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 50. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants namely Ramavtar Chakradhari, Narendra Prasad Shreevas and Mohd. Murtaza @ Bablu Khan are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 51. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action forthwith.