JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.1997 passed by Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 307 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence u/s 302/34 of the IPC and R.I. for 04 years for the offence u/s 201 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Alosi Devi recorded on 08.10.1995, in which, it has been stated that the daughter of the informant namely, Budhni Devi was married to Shankar Mandal and she remained at her matrimonial house for one and a half months after which the father of Budhni Devi brought her to his home. The daughter of the informant did not want to go back to her matrimonial house. It has been stated that Shankar Mandal had come to take Budhni Devi on the occasion of Charghara Mela and on Thursday she had left with her husband. It has been alleged that Budhni Devi was pressurized by her in-laws to deal in illicit liquor and also earn by indulging in prostitution. It has further been alleged that on 08.10.1995 at 6:00-7:00 A.M. Tulsi Mandal came from Charghara and intimated that Budhni Devi has been murdered and her dead body has been concealed in the well. At this information, the informant and her brother-in-law went to Charghara and found the dead body of Budhni Devi lying near a well. Based on the aforesaid allegations Jamtara P.S. Case No. 185/1995 was instituted for the offences u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 307 of 1996. Based on the aforesaid allegations Jamtara P.S. Case No. 185/1995 was instituted for the offences u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 307 of 1996. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 and 201 of the IPC and against accused Radhiya Devi and Mainwa Devi charge was further framed u/s 302 of the IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Hiralal Bhandari) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 6. P.W.2 (Nakul Mandal) has stated that he was in his house when Katki Mandal came and informed him that her sister- in-law has been murdered and the body has been thrown in the well. He rushed to the house of Mukund Mandal on getting such information where a crowd had already gathered. The dead body was taken out from the well. Mukund Mandal and his family members were prevented from fleeing away. The deceased Budhni Devi was married to Shankar Mandal about four months back. Shankar Mandal was earlier married once. Budhni Devi was murdered because she had refused to succumb to the pressure created by her in-laws to indulge in prostitution. The Police had come and had prepared an inquest report in which he had put his signature. The accused persons were ostracized from the society because of their indulgence in dealing with liquor and prostitution. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Budhni Devi was his sister-in-law. Budhni Devi was earlier married to Indra Mandal who had left her consequent to which she had solemnized marriage with Shankar Mandal. He has deposed that he had seen the dead body. There was no injury on the dead body except a red mark on the chest. 7. P.W.3 (Mantu Rajak) has stated that after coming home he was washing his hands and feet when Nakul Mandal came and informed him about the death of the sister-in-law of Nakul Mandal. The information was disclosed to Nakul Mandal by Katki @ Champa Devi. There was no injury on the dead body except a red mark on the chest. 7. P.W.3 (Mantu Rajak) has stated that after coming home he was washing his hands and feet when Nakul Mandal came and informed him about the death of the sister-in-law of Nakul Mandal. The information was disclosed to Nakul Mandal by Katki @ Champa Devi. Nakul Mandal had managed to get the dead body out of the well. Shankar Mandal had married Budhni Devi about 4-5 years back. Mukund Mandal used to sell liquor. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not go to the house of Mukund Mandal. His statement was not recorded by the Police. 8. P.W.4 (Champa Devi) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. P.W.5 (Tulsi Mandal) has stated that on 07.10.1995 at 9:00 P.M. while he was returning home from the market, he had heard a commotion and when he had gone to the source of the commotion he had found Nakul Mandal, Mantu Rajak, Hiralal Bhandari and Fuleshwar Mandal. Some persons had disclosed that Mukund Mandal has murdered his daughter-in-law and has thrown the dead body in the well. Those persons had disclosed about such information which was received from Katki Devi. The dead body was taken out from the well. Mukund Mandal and his family members indulged in the sale of liquor. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Nakul Mandal is his brother. His statement was recorded by the Police on the next day of occurrence. The dead body was not taken out from the well in his presence. 10. P.W.6 (Phulo Mandal) has stated that Katki had disclosed that her parents, brother and sister have committed the murder of her sister-in-law. In the morning the dead body was taken out from the well. He has proved his signature and the signature of Nakul Mandal in the inquest report which have been marked as Exhibit-1 and 1/1 respectively. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Shankar Mandal 2-3 months prior to the date of occurrence. He cannot say about the cause of death. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is an accused in two cases of dacoity. His statement was recorded by the Police in which he had stated about the disclosure made by Katki Devi about the murder committed by her family members. He cannot say about the cause of death. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is an accused in two cases of dacoity. His statement was recorded by the Police in which he had stated about the disclosure made by Katki Devi about the murder committed by her family members. He used to frequent the house of Shankar Mandal. 11. P.W.7 (Alosi Devi) is the informant who has stated that Tulsi Mandal had given an information about her daughter having been murdered and the dead body thrown in the well. Tulsi Mandal had disclosed about Radhiya Devi, Fatuwa @ Mainwa, Mukund Mandal and Shankar Mandal having committed the murder. She had seen the dead body of her daughter kept in a cot after taking it out from the well. Her fardbeyan was recorded by the Police. The marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Shankar Mandal about two months back. Her daughter had disclosed that her in-laws were forcing her to sell liquor and indulge in flesh trade. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her daughter was earlier married to Indra Mandal who is still alive. Indra Mandal had deserted her daughter. After two days of Indra Mandal leaving her daughter, she was married to Shankar Mandal. 12. P.W.8 (Raghunath Mandal) has stated that Tulsi Mandal had come and disclosed that his niece has been murdered. He had gone to the place of occurrence where he had seen the dead body of his niece which was later on taken out from the well. His niece was earlier married to Indra Mandal and after a Panchayat induced separation she was got married to Shankar Mandal. In Charghara his niece was being coerced to indulge in illegal things. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he cannot say as to who had committed the murder as he had not witnessed the same. 13. P.W.9 (Dr. S.K. Prasad) was posted as a Medical Officer in Sub Divisional Hospital, Jamtara and on 08.10.1995 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Budhni Devi and had found the following: (i) No sign of external injury. (ii) Rigor mortis present straight in lower limb but mandible in upper limbs. (iii) Eyes were close. Mouth closed. (iv) Cause of death:- was not possible to detect, hence viscera was preserved and sealed. Muddy froth was found in both the nostrils. (ii) Rigor mortis present straight in lower limb but mandible in upper limbs. (iii) Eyes were close. Mouth closed. (iv) Cause of death:- was not possible to detect, hence viscera was preserved and sealed. Muddy froth was found in both the nostrils. (v) In trachea and larynx- No abnormality was found. (vi) Stomach- half full of semi digested food. The cause of death could not be detected and hence viscera was preserved. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He has stated that there were no features of drowning. 14. P.W.10 (Dhuki Mandal) has stated that he had gone to the market when he heard from Tulsi Mandal that the daughter- in-law of Mukund Mandal has been murdered. The daughter of Mukund Mandal is his daughter-in-law. He had left his daughter-in-law because of her and her family members conduct who used to sell liquor. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his daughter-in-law had instituted a case u/s 498A of the IPC against him and his family members. 15. P.W.11 (Nitya Nand Singh) was posted as a Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and on 16.10.1995 he had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Champa Mandalian. He has proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-5. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement Champa Mandalian had stated that she had not seen the deceased being thrown in the well. In cross-examination, he has deposed that another statement of Champa Mandalian was recorded which has been marked “X” for identification. 16. P.W.12 (Kamla Prasad Singh) was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police and on 08.10.1995 at 12:15 A.M. he had received an information from the Chowkidar that in Charghara village a dead body has been found floating in the well. In the morning the dead body was taken out and an inquest report was prepared in presence of witnesses. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. The dead body was sent for autopsy. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Alosi Devi which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. He has proved his endorsement as well as the endorsement of Ram Kumar Sharma which have been marked as Exhibit-7/1 and 7/2 respectively. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. He had recorded the restatement of the informant as well as the statements of other witnesses. He has proved his endorsement as well as the endorsement of Ram Kumar Sharma which have been marked as Exhibit-7/1 and 7/2 respectively. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. He had recorded the restatement of the informant as well as the statements of other witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence and had also prepared a sketch map. The map has been proved and marked as Exhibit-9. The place of occurrence is a well which has a diameter of 10 feet and is situated at a distance of 20 feet from the house of the accused. The grass in the Kitchen Garden of the accused was found crushed which indicates that the deceased was subjected to assault. He has further stated that he had got the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Champa Devi recorded. The viscera was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Calcutta. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. He had recorded the statement of Hiralal Bhandari who had stated about the information of murder committed by the accused persons given to him by Nakul Mandal who was earlier informed by Champa Devi. He had recorded the statement of Champa Devi who had stated about the assault committed by the accused persons upon Budhni Devi and after committing the murder the body was thrown in the well to conceal the same. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not recorded the confessional statement of Champa Devi. The witness Fulo Mandal has not stated that Katki Devi had disclosed about her family members committing the murder of Budhni Devi. 17. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the murder. 18. It has been submitted by Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants that there is a total dearth of evidence so far as the prosecution is concerned. None of the witnesses have specifically stated about any torture committed by the appellants. The cause of death could not be ascertained and even the viscera report was not produced by the prosecution. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Shankar Mandal a few days prior to the incident. The star witness of the prosecution P.W.4 (Champa Devi) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Mr. The cause of death could not be ascertained and even the viscera report was not produced by the prosecution. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Shankar Mandal a few days prior to the incident. The star witness of the prosecution P.W.4 (Champa Devi) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Mr. Das has submitted that as per the inquest report certain injuries were found on the person of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance which would appear to be post-mortem as the body of the deceased was taken out from the well with a Jhanjhar. It has, therefore, been submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 19. Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the death had taken place in the house of the appellants who have failed to explain the circumstances leading to such death. The motive for such murder is evident as the deceased was resisting the pressure created by the appellants to indulge in flesh trade and sell of liquor. There are strong circumstances indicating the involvement of the appellants in committing the murder of Budhni Devi. 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 21. It seems that the appellant Shankar Mandal was earlier married and so was the deceased Budhni Devi. Shankar Mandal had married Budhni Devi a few days prior to the death of Budhni Devi. Some of the witnesses including the informant (P.W.7) has stated about the pressure put by the appellants to indulge in flesh trade and sell of liquor. There has been no revelation that the deceased was subjected to torture. In course of investigation the only witness of substance was the sister-in-law of the deceased who had stated about the assault committed by the appellants upon Budhni Devi and she was subsequently thrown in the well. Apart from the said witness (P.W.4) turning hostile during trial the other interesting feature is the postmortem report which does not speak of any injuries found on the person of the deceased. Apart from the said witness (P.W.4) turning hostile during trial the other interesting feature is the postmortem report which does not speak of any injuries found on the person of the deceased. The inquest report, however, has mentioned about some injuries found on the person of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance but it is to be borne in mind that the dead body was taken out from the well with a Jhanjhar (grappling hook) and postmortem injuries cannot at all be ruled out. This aspect of the matter was never considered by the learned trial court which proceeded on the assumption that the postmortem report submitted by P.W.9 is a collusive report. The viscera report which did not also ascertain the cause of death has been once again attributed to P.W.9 by coming to a conclusion that P.W.9 was aware that nothing could be found in the viscera of the deceased and the viscera was sent to cover up the misdeeds of P.W.9. This conclusion of the learned trial court is bereft of any sound reasonings. To prove a case based on circumstantial evidence it is necessary that all the circumstances are proved beyond reasonable doubts. As we have noticed above the cause of death itself has not been ascertained and there are no adversarial circumstances from which it could be inferred that it was the appellants who were responsible for the death of Budhni Devi. 22. In the case of “Raja Naykar versus State of Chhattisgarh” reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 71, it has been held as follows: “8. 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 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. 9. 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.” 23. The factual aspects borne out from the present case reveals an abundance of ambiguity and a clear doubt about the guilt of the appellants emerges from the prosecution case itself. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.1997 passed by Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 307 of 1996. 24. This appeal is allowed. 25. Since the appellants are on bail they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 26. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed. 27. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.