JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018, Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1149 of 2018, Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05-06-2018 (sentence passed on 11-06-2018) passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in S.T. No. 85/13 and S.T. No. 16/14 whereby and whereunder, the appellant Basant Kumar Mahto has been convicted for the offences under Section 302, 201/34 IPC, while the other appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC and the appellant Basant Kumar Mahato has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional 6 months simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. So far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC and in default in payment of fine, they have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 4 months. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Prahlad Chandra Mahto dated 23-08-2012 in which it has been stated that he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter Manju Devi with Basant Kumar Mahto in the year 2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the daughter of the informant used to be tortured by her husband and in-laws. The commission of torture used to be disclosed by the daughter of the informant to the informant and his wife, but to keep their prestige in the society, they used to ask their daughter to continue to reside at her matrimonial house. After marriage, the daughter of the informant used to be tortured by her husband and in-laws. The commission of torture used to be disclosed by the daughter of the informant to the informant and his wife, but to keep their prestige in the society, they used to ask their daughter to continue to reside at her matrimonial house. After one year of the marriage, the grandson of the informant was born in the year 2009. The accused persons, despite the birth of a child, continued with the torture upon the daughter of the informant for the land situated at Ranchi. It has been stated that on seeing the plight of the daughter of the informant, he had made an agreement for the land but the same was not registered for which she was subjected to abuses and assault. On 14-08-2012, in the evening, Basant Kumar Mahto called up the wife of the informant and started enquiring about his wife and son to which, the wife of the informant replied that they have not come to her house. The phone was thereafter, snatched by the sister-in-law of Basant Kumar Mahto, who said that on the previous day at 9:00PM, there was a quarrel between Basant Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi regarding the land situated at Ranchi at which a crowd had gathered and Basant Kumar Mahto had pressed the neck of Manju Devi. She had also stated that she had intervened and pacified the situation and thereafter, she had disconnected the call. On this information, the wife of the informant got nervous and disclosed about the conversation to her neighbours. The wife of the informant thereafter, went to her in-laws’ place and with her another son-in-law, Maheshwar Mahto, Madhusudan Mahto and Rishikesh Mahto had gone to Kankaljara where she came to know that on 13-08-2012, there has been a fight between Basant Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi and Basant Kumar Mahto had committed assault upon Manju Devi. On 14-08-2012, Basant Kumar Mahto along with his family members had caused disappearance of the daughter and grandson of the informant. The informant has a doubt that something ominous could happen with his daughter and grandson. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 48/12 has been instituted under Section 365, 364/34 IPC. On 14-08-2012, Basant Kumar Mahto along with his family members had caused disappearance of the daughter and grandson of the informant. The informant has a doubt that something ominous could happen with his daughter and grandson. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 48/12 has been instituted under Section 365, 364/34 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 S.T. No. 16/14 and S.T. No. 85/13, which were amalgamated. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 365/34, 364/34, 201/34 and 302/34 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as twenty-one witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Khirodhar Singh Munda has stated that on 13-08-2012, a quarrel had occurred between Basant Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi regarding the land of Prahlad Chandra Mahto situated at Lowadih. After marriage, the land was to be transferred to Basant Kumar Mahto. The marriage of Basant and Manju Devi was solemnized in the year 2008 and out of the said wedlock, a son has been born to them. On the same day, Basant Kumar Mahto was conversing with his mother-in-law and Manji Devi had snatched the phone from Basant Kumar Mahto. Thereafter, no conversation in phone had happened. He and the others had gone to the house of Basant Kumar Mahto and had searched for Manju Devi and her son. When Bacchan Lal Mahto had threatened them, they had fled away. They had thereafter gone to Rahe O.P. along with the mother of Manju Devi and disclosed about the incident to the Police. On 20-08-2012, they had seen a paper cutting in which it was written that an unidentified dead body was found near Tajna river. Before they could reach the said place, the Police had already sent the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem. They had identified the dead body to be that of Manju Devi from the photographs shown to them by the Police. When they went to RIMS, the dead body was already cremated. On 23-08-2012, the mother of Manju had lodged an FIR. They had identified the dead body to be that of Manju Devi from the photographs shown to them by the Police. When they went to RIMS, the dead body was already cremated. On 23-08-2012, the mother of Manju had lodged an FIR. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the murder of Manju Devi and her son or of immersing them in the river. PW.2 Budhadeo Munda has stated that the incident had occurred at about 5:00-6:00AM. He was grazing his bullocks near the river when he saw a child being dug out from the ditch and a foul smell was emanating. The persons who were involved in such act were Basant Kumar Mahto, Bacchanlal Mahto, Mahabir Mahto, Krishna Mahto and Manji Devi. They had immersed the body in the river. Basant Mahto had disclosed that the body was of his own son. Prahlad Mahto had later on disclosed that his daughter had been murdered. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident, Hemant Singh Munda was with him. He had not disclosed the matter to the Police. P.W.3 Hemant Singh Munda has stated that the incident had taken place a day prior to Mansa Puja. He was grazing his bullocks near the river when he saw 4-5 persons digging out a child from a ditch. There was a foul smell emanating. These persons were identified as Basant Kumar Mahto, Bacchan Lal Mahto, Mahabir Mahto, Manji Devi and Krishna Mahto. On being asked, these persons had disclosed that they are taking away the child since the child belongs to them. Later on, Prahlad Mahto had disclosed about his daughter and grandson missing. Prahlad Mahto had also stated that his pregnant daughter and grandson were assaulted by the in-laws of his daughter and thereafter, she vanished. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his house is parallel to the river. It was not dark at that point of time and Vidyut Patra had witnessed the entire incident. He had not stated to the Police that there was a love affair between Basant Kumar Mahto and Manji Devi. He had seen the child being taken away from a distance of 10-15 meters. P.W.4 Bhagirathi Devi is the mother of the deceased Manju Devi who has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Basant Kumar Mahto in the year 2008. He had seen the child being taken away from a distance of 10-15 meters. P.W.4 Bhagirathi Devi is the mother of the deceased Manju Devi who has stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Basant Kumar Mahto in the year 2008. After 3- 4 months of the marriage, Basant Kumar Mahto and his family members started committing torture upon her daughter. Whenever her daughter used to come to her place, she used to complain about a demand of money and two kathas of land made from the side of her in-laws. In the year 2009, Manju Devi had given birth to a son. On 13-08-2012, Manju Devi was murdered and on 14-08-2012, her son-in-law Basant Kumar Mahto had called her on phone and wanted to know as to whether Manju Devi and her son has come to Basantpur or not which was replied to by her in the negative. She along with her husband and others had gone to the matrimonial house of her daughter where some females had disclosed that both have been murdered and thrown in the river. They were threatened by the accused persons. In course of search, at a distance of 7-8 km, the saree of her daughter was located at Shyamnagar village. The Police was informed who came and seized the same. On the next day, some shepherds had disclosed that a body has been seen near the river which was taken away by 4-5 persons on a vehicle. After 10-15 days, on seeing a photo in Dainik Bhaskar, she had gone to the T.O.P. The dead body was recovered by Khunti P.S. for which U.D. Case No. 19/12 was instituted. She and the others had gone to RIMS where they came to know that the body has been cremated 2 days back. Basant Kumar Mahto was caught by the villagers after which he had confessed. She has proved the confessional statement which has been marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her statement was recorded by the Police after 8-10 days from the date of occurrence. No case was instituted between 2009-2013. The agreement with respect to the land at Lowadih was made in the name of Manju Devi. P.W.5 Maheshwar Mahto and P.W.6 Madhusudhan Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. No case was instituted between 2009-2013. The agreement with respect to the land at Lowadih was made in the name of Manju Devi. P.W.5 Maheshwar Mahto and P.W.6 Madhusudhan Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Pasupati Nath Mahto has stated that in August 2012, the date of which he does not remember, a dead body was recovered within the jurisdiction of Khunti P.S. After coming to know about the same from the newspaper, he, Prahlad Chandra Mahto, Khirodhar Singh Munda and Bhagirathi Devi had gone to the Police Station and on being asked, the Police had shown a photograph of a dead body which was identified to be that of Manju Devi. The mother of the deceased Manju Devi had disclosed that the husband and in-laws of her daughter had murdered her. In cross examination, he has deposed that he has the photographs and he had produced a negative of the photographs which has been marked as Exhibit-A. P.W.8 Ratan Lal Mahto and P.W.9 Nand Lal Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.10 Lalit Kumar Mahto is the brother of Manju Devi who has stated that the marriage of Manju Devi was solemnized with Basant Kumar Mahto on 09-07-2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. After 5-6 months of the marriage, the in-laws of his sister started committing torture upon her. In the marriage it was orally agreed to transfer the land of the informant situated at Lowadih. Whenever his sister came to her parents' place, she used to disclose about the torture committed upon her. After one year of the marriage, his sister had given birth to a son who was named Nitesh Kumar. On 13-08-2012, an incident had happened with his sister, the information of which was given by Basant Kumar Mahto to him. Basant Kumar Mahto had disclosed about a quarrel he had with his sister. The reason for the quarrel is that Basant Kumar Mahto wanted to get the land at Lowadih registered in his name. When his mother reached Tangdidiha, she had seen a crowd who were discussing about Basant Kumar Mahto having murdered Manju Devi and had thrown her in the river. The reason for the quarrel is that Basant Kumar Mahto wanted to get the land at Lowadih registered in his name. When his mother reached Tangdidiha, she had seen a crowd who were discussing about Basant Kumar Mahto having murdered Manju Devi and had thrown her in the river. In course of search in the river, a ‘Kattha’ coloured saree of Manju Devi was recovered which was seized by the Police. When he and the others had gone to Malangkir village, the villagers had disclosed that the dead body of a female has been seen. The villagers were shown the photographs of Manju Devi who had identified the same as that of the person whose body they had seen. On 23-08-2012, he came to know from Dainik Bhaskar newspaper that a body has been recovered from Tajna river and when his parents and other family members had gone to Khunti P.S., they came to know that the body is of his sister whose autopsy was done and thereafter, the Police had cremated the dead body. Apart from Basant Kumar Mahto, his sister was tortured by Pashupati Nath Mahto, Tarni Devi, Manji Devi, Naresh, Maheshwar Mahto and Krishna Mahto. In cross-examination, he has deposed that after 3-4 days of the incident, Police had recorded his statement. He had stated to the Police that on 14-08-2012, Basant Kumar Mahto had called his mother over phone and had disclosed that Manju Devi and her son had gone to Basantpur and in course of such telephonic conversation, Manji Devi had snatched the phone from Basant Kumar Mahto and had stated that on 13-08-2012 at 9:00PM due to the land situated at Ranchi, a quarrel had ensued between Basant Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi and Basant Kumar Mahto had pressed the neck of Manju Devi but the villagers pacified the situation. He had stated to the Police that after the quarrel was pacified, Manji Devi had taken his sister to the bedroom and she had also given food to his sister. P.W.11 Prahlad Chandra Mahto is the informant and the father of the deceased Manju Devi who has stated about solemnization of marriage of Manju Devi with Basant Kumar Mahto on 09-07-2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. His daughter was kept well for 4-5 months after which, her husband and in-laws started committing torture upon her. P.W.11 Prahlad Chandra Mahto is the informant and the father of the deceased Manju Devi who has stated about solemnization of marriage of Manju Devi with Basant Kumar Mahto on 09-07-2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. His daughter was kept well for 4-5 months after which, her husband and in-laws started committing torture upon her. The reason for the torture was the two katha of land at Lowadih, Ranchi which the accused persons wanted to be registered in their name. In the meantime, a son was born to his daughter and she had once again become pregnant. Whenever his daughter came to his place, she used to disclose to her mother Bhagirathi Devi about the commission of torture. To preserve their prestige in the society, his daughter was pacified and advised to be patient. He has stated that on 14-08-2012 Basant Kumar Mahto had called up his wife Bhagirathi Devi over phone and he wanted to know as to whether Manju Devi and her son had gone to her place or not. The sister-in-law of Basant Kumar Mahto, namely, Manji Devi had snatched the phone and disclosed that last night a quarrel had taken place between Basant Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi over the two kathas of land and Manju Devi was assaulted. On receiving such information, he and his wife became agitated and thereafter he, his wife and his son Lalit Kumar Mahto and villagers, Khirodhar Singh Munda and Pashupati Nath Mahto had gone to Tungrudih village where they were joined by Maheshwar Mahto, Rishikesh Mahto and Madhusudan Mahto and all had gone to Kunkaljara at the matrimonial house of his daughter where a crowd had already gathered. The accused persons had stated that they do not know the whereabouts of Manju Devi and her son. As they were leaving, one Nabokristo Mahto had told them to go and search for the missing Manju Devi and her child in the river. They had returned back home at 8:00PM and on the next day, they had searched the river but no trace could be found and at 3:00PM they had gone to the Police Station complaining that no FIR has been lodged. On the third or fourth day, the saree of his daughter was found wrapped around a sesame tree at village Gari Halmat. On getting this information, Police had come and seized the same. On the third or fourth day, the saree of his daughter was found wrapped around a sesame tree at village Gari Halmat. On getting this information, Police had come and seized the same. After 2-3 days of recovery of the same the dead body of Nitesh Kumar which was buried came out due to flow of water and the accused persons had immersed it in the river. After 2-3 days thereafter, the shepherds had disclosed that they had seen a dead body at Marankiri Ghat and when they reached the said place, an old person had disclosed that a dead body of a female was located which was taken away by Maheshwar Mahto on a jeep at 10:00PM. He has stated that Basant Kumar Mahto was apprehended by members of the Mahila Samiti and he had confessed to his committing the murder of his wife and son. On 21-08-2012, on the basis of a newspaper report, he and the others had gone to Khunti where they came to know that U.D. Case No. 19/12 has been instituted and he had identified the dead body of his daughter from the photograph shown to him. The body after post-mortem was sent to RIMS for keeping it in the morgue and when they reached RIMS, they had come to know that the body has already been cremated. On 22-08-2012, he had given a written report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. He had given a second application and he has proved his signature on the same which has been marked as Exhibit-3. The photographs of his daughter have been marked as Y and Y/1 for identification. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not filed any case of torture against Mahabir Mahto and Krishna Mahto. No Panchayati was ever held. The place where the saree was recovered was at a distance of 15-20 km from his house. He had identified the photographs of his daughter and grandson on being produced by the defence counsel and the same have been marked as Exhibit- A and A/1. P.W.12 Narendra Nath Mahto has proved his statement recorded before the Magistrate which has been marked Y/2 for identification and the signature of the witness in the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. P.W.12 Narendra Nath Mahto has proved his statement recorded before the Magistrate which has been marked Y/2 for identification and the signature of the witness in the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. He has stated that at 8:00- 9:00P.M., he was returning home from his field when he saw a jeep-like vehicle come in front of his house and there was a foul smell coming out from the vehicle. He stopped his own vehicle and saw 3-4 persons sitting in the jeep and the dead body of a female could also be seen. A person got down from the vehicle, who disclosed his name as Maheshwar Mahto and stated that he is taking a dead body of a female from Basantpur. These persons thereafter, left and he returned back home. He had not seen the face of the person who was speaking to him and he came to know about him when he disclosed his name. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the Police. He had not stated before the Magistrate about the disclosure made by the person in the jeep as being Maheshwar Mahto. He had also not stated that the dead body of a female was lying inside the jeep. P.W.13 Ashok Kumar Mahto has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He has also proved the signature of his uncle Rathuram Mahto who is now no more which has been marked as Exhibit-5/1. P.W.14 Man Singh Mahto and P.W.15 Gobardhan Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.16 Julen Sishir Murmu was posted as In-charge Rahe O.P. and on 23-08-2012, he had received a written report of Prahlad Mahto based on which he had sent it to Sonahatu P.S. for registering a formal FIR. He had thereafter, taken over investigation of the case. In course of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statement of other witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Kunkaljara in the mud-tiled house which consists of three rooms. Manju Devi and her son had disappeared from the room on the eastern side of the house. He had recorded the statement of Bhajan Lal Mahto and Gobardhan Mahto who had supported the case of the prosecution. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Kunkaljara in the mud-tiled house which consists of three rooms. Manju Devi and her son had disappeared from the room on the eastern side of the house. He had recorded the statement of Bhajan Lal Mahto and Gobardhan Mahto who had supported the case of the prosecution. Basant Kumar Mahto was apprehended and his confessional statement was recorded. On 23-08-2012, the saree of the deceased Manju Devi was recovered and a seizure list was prepared. The seized saree was identified by Bhagirathi Devi as that of her daughter Manju Devi. On the orders of the superior authorities, chargesheet was submitted against Basant Kumar Mahto, Krishna Kumar Mahto and Mahabir Mahto keeping the investigation pending against the rest accused persons. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-5/02. On 02-12-2012, the informant had given a written application that an unidentified dead body has been recovered by Khunti Police. Bhagirathi Devi, Khirodhar Singh Munda and Pasupati Nath Mahto had identified from the photographs that the dead body was that of Manju Devi. When he enquired from RIMS, it came to light that the body has been cremated. On being transferred, he had handed over the investigation to the Officer-in-charge. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-6. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. In cross-examination, he has deposed that none of the witnesses have stated to have witnessed the incident. None of the witnesses have claimed to have seen the body. P.W.17 Jitendra Kumar Raman was posted as In-charge of Rahe O.P. and on 09-07-2013, he had started supplementary investigation in Sonahatu(Rahe) P.S. Case No. 48/12. On perusal of the case diary, it came to his knowledge that charge sheet has been submitted against Basant Kumar Mahto, Krishna Kumar Mahto and Mahabir Mahto. In course of investigation, he had recorded the statements of two independent witnesses, Budhdeo Patar Munda and Hemant Singh Munda who had supported the prosecution case. Both the witnesses have supported the fact that, except Tarni Devi and Pasupati Nath Mahto, all the accused persons had dug out the body of the child and had immersed it in the river. On finding the allegations to be true, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against Bacchan Lal Mahto and Manji Devi. Both the witnesses have supported the fact that, except Tarni Devi and Pasupati Nath Mahto, all the accused persons had dug out the body of the child and had immersed it in the river. On finding the allegations to be true, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against Bacchan Lal Mahto and Manji Devi. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses after one year from the date of occurrence. The witnesses had stated about Manji Devi and Bacchan Lal immersing the body in Radu River. The dead body was not recovered. P.W.18 Bhajan Lal Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.19 Jagdish Chandra Mahto was posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Khunti P.S. and on 20-08- 2012, near village Bela Hata at Tajna river, a dead body of a female was recovered. The dead body did not have any clothes. He has proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-7/1. After photography of the dead body, the same was sent for autopsy. After a few days, some family members came who had identified the dead body shown in the photograph. He has proved the photographs which have been marked as Exhibits-8 and 8/1. He has proved the photocopy of the statement of the Chowkidar which has been marked ‘X’ for identification. Based on such fardbeyan an U.D. case was lodged. In cross-examination, he has deposed that The Investigating Officer had not recorded his statement in S.T. No. 85/13. P.W.20 Kali Charan Mahto alias Kali Pado Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.21 Dr. Sunil Khalkho was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Khunti and on 20-08-2012, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of an unknown female and had found the following: (i) There is no external injury due to macerated body. (ii) On dissection of lungs-serosanguinous fluid on cut section and lot of fluid on stomach was found. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to drowning. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-9. 5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the commission of the offence. 6. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to drowning. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-9. 5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the commission of the offence. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018 that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The circumstantial evidence banked upon by the prosecution is also full of contradictions and incongruities. The only incriminating circumstance is the quarrel which had occurred between Basant Kumar Mahto and his wife Manju Devi which was pacified by Manji Devi. Nobody had seen the deceased leave her matrimonial house or the appellants taking out the deceased. It has been submitted that the death of Manju Devi was on account of asphyxia due to drowning and, therefore, the question of committing her murder cannot be attributed to the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018. In absence of any concrete evidence suggestive of the involvement of the appellant Basant Kumar Mato in committing the murder of his wife and children, the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. So far as the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018 is concerned, she has been convicted for causing disappearance of evidence on the basis of some persons having been found on a jeep in which the dead body of a female was lying. In fact, as per the prosecution witnesses, it was the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018, who had pacified the situation when Basant Kumar Mahto was quarrelling and assaulting Manju Devi. It has been submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution is weak in nature and cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellants. 7. Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1149 of 2018 has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Md. It has been submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution is weak in nature and cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellants. 7. Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1149 of 2018 has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018 while submitting that so far as the appellants, he is representing, are concerned, there is no iota of evidence indicating about the appellants participating in the disappearance of the dead body of Manju Devi and her son. 8. Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. have referred to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12, who all have been consistent and have described certain incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the appellants. Some of the appellants were seen taking away the dead body of a child after exhuming it and immersing it in the river, while one witness has stated about the presence of a dead body of a female in the jeep. The appellant Basant Kumar Mahto has a defining role being the husband and was instrumental in committing the murders of his wife and son. Such a diabolical crime does not invite any sympathy. 9. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the informant has submitted that the evidence of the witnesses clearly demarcates the role played by each of the appellants in committing the murder of Manju Devi and her son and causing disappearance of their bodies. Mr. Sahani has put particular reliance on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.11, who are the parents of the deceased Manju Devi and who have categorically revealed about the telephonic conversation P.W.4 had with Basant Kumar Mahto and subsequent thereto with Manji Devi from where it could be gathered that on the same night when Manju Devi was subjected to assault, she and her son were murdered and were thrown in the river. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 11. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 11. So far as the appellant Basant Kumar Mahto in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018 is concerned, he is said to be the person who had eliminated his wife and son in a surreptitious manner on account of the purported volatile relationship between him and Manju Devi. P.W.4 and P.W.11 are the parents of the deceased Manju Devi, who have stated that after 3-4 months of the marital life of their daughter, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellant who was her husband and the focal point of dispute seems to be the piece of land at Lowadih in Ranchi which was agreed upon to be transferred to the appellant. An agreement was prepared, but the registration of the land was not done which agitated the appellant and his family members resulting in such conduct as alleged. The other circumstance is the confessional statement of the appellant admitting to committing the murder of his wife and child. 12. So far as the estranged relationship of the appellant and his wife is concerned, vague allegations have been levelled about the torture committed upon Manju Devi. It is an admitted fact that no complaint was made anywhere regarding such torture and no specific instance has been given barring the incident which occurred on 13-08-2012. As per P.W.4, who is the mother of the deceased Manju Devi, she had received a telephonic call from Basant Kumar Mahto asking her as to whether Manju Devi and her child had come to Basantpur. This witness has not elaborated further regarding the telephonic conversation but P.W.11, the father of the deceased Manju Devi has given a different version to the effect that the phone was snatched from Basant Kumar Mahto by Manji Devi who had stated about the quarrel between Basant Kumar Mato and Manju Devi which was somehow pacified. The prosecution, by relying on this extended conversation, has tried to connect the death of Manju Devi and her son with the quarrel that had ensued earlier without considering the fact that the best person to have been able to give the actual version about the conversation was P.W.4 as it was P.W.4 who was called by Basant Kumar Mahto to know about the whereabouts of his wife and child. It was therefore, P.W.4 who was best suited to throw some light on the conversation and since she had limited the conversation to only seeking the whereabouts of Manju Devi and her child by the appellant Basant Kumar Mahto, the version of the other witnesses including P.W.11 would apparently be an exaggerated version. None of the witnesses have stated about any inkling about the act which was to be committed. No one had even seen the appellant going with the deceased nor have the witnesses expressed any suspicious movement on the date of the occurrence. The dead body of Manju Devi was recovered after a few days from the river bank and the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to drowning which gives a different angle and a probability to the case of the prosecution and rules out the commission of murder of Manju Devi. 13. Another angle of the case emanates from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were grazing bullocks when they had seen some persons digging out the dead body of a child from a ditch and taking it away. Both had identified the persons as the appellants. However, the same has not been reported to the Police or to any authority as such conduct of the appellants if at all was witnessed would have bound to arouse suspicion. As per P.W.2, P.W.3 was with him when such scenario unfolded. P.W.3 has stated that he had seen the incident from a distance of 10- 15 meters which is at a considerable distance coupled with the fact that it was almost evening and silence of both P.W.2 and P.W.3 in informing such incident to any authority designs their evidence within a cloak of disbelief. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.12 also reveals about seeing the dead body of a female in a jeep in which some persons were sitting and though he has not identified anyone by face, his nonchalant reaction is contrary to a natural human conduct. The appellants barring Basant Kumar Mahto have been convicted for causing disappearance of evidence based on the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and since we have discarded the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, no other incriminating circumstance remains against these appellants. The appellants barring Basant Kumar Mahto have been convicted for causing disappearance of evidence based on the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and since we have discarded the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, no other incriminating circumstance remains against these appellants. So far as the confessional statement of Basant Kumar Mahto is concerned, the same as per some of the witnesses, were given when he was apprehended by the members of the Mahila Samiti and it can be inferred that such confessional statement was extracted under duress and coercion. Even otherwise, no recovery was effected on such confession which makes such statement redundant. The prosecution is needed to complete the chain of circumstances in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants. 14. In the case of Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2025) 3 SCC 680 , it has been held as follows: “ 14. When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. In this case, two significant circumstances forming the chain have not been established.” 15. On consideration of the factors necessary for completing the chain of circumstances and the same being not present in the case of the prosecution, we have no hesitation but to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05-06- 2018 (sentence passed on 11-06-2018) passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in S.T. No. 85/2013 and S.T. No. 16/2014. 16. All these appeals are allowed. 17. Since the appellant Basant Kumar Mahto in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018 is in custody, he is directed to be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1149 of 2018 are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 18. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.