D.R. Deshmukh, J.@mdashThis judgment shall govern Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2004 preferred by Appellant Somdas Goswami and Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2004 preferred by Appellant Khoman Bharti. Both Appellants were convicted u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to additional R.I. for two years u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to R.I. for two years and line of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to additional R.I. for six months u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar vide judgment dated 14-10-2004 in Sessions Case No. 243/2003.
2. Admittedly, the deceased Dr. K.D. Saraswat was Principal of Government College, Simga and resided at Raipur. Smt. Padmini Saraswat P.W. 14 (sic) his widow. The Appellant Somdas Goswami was a Professor in Government College Simga while Appellant Khoman Bharti was working as a Clerk. The deceased K.D. Saraswat had accompanied the Appellant Somdas Goswami in his motorcycle to the Police Station Simga in the afternoon on 23-05-2003. It is also not in dispute that the hacked parts of the dead body allegedly recovered (sic)rom the field of the Appellant Somdas were that of K.D. Saraswat.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 23-05-2003 at about 4-5 P.M., K.D. Saraswat had accompanied the Appellant Somdas Goswami on his motorcycle to the Police Station Simga for obtaining the bundles of answer copies or deposit at the University at Raipur. From the Police Station, the Appellant Somdas Goswami took K.D. Saraswat on his motorcycle to the house of Khoman Bharti where both Appellants committed murder of K.D. Saraswat by pressing is thyroid cartilage. K.D. Saraswat died due to asphyxia. After committing his murder, the Appellants hacked the dead body of K.D. Saraswat by a Gandasa to many pieces and filled them in two gunny bags. Appellant Somdas Goswami who ad agricultural land in Village Bhatgaon asked Jugul, P.W. 10 to dig two pits of 2 (sic)eet wide and 2 feet deep in his field on the pretext of fixing poles for electricity. (sic)ater, the Appellants caused disappearance of the evidence of murder by burying the hacked body of K.D. Saraswat in those pits dug by Jugul, P.W. 10. The Gandasa was hidden in the field of Atiram Lodhi. Thereafter, to cause disappearance of signs of digging pits, Appellant Somdas Goswami asked Balesh Thakur, P.W. 5 of plough the field at night. Balesh Thakur did the job at night. The Appellants (sic)rew the watch, mobile phone, key rings of the deceased in the well of one Punit Ram Sahu and threw the pen, Tiffin box. chashma and chappal of the deceased on the side of the road towards Gandai. The Appellant Somdas Goswami burnt the clothes of the deceased and gunny bags etc, in a pit in his matrimonial house at Silhati.
4. Smt. Padmini Saraswat lodged a missing person report on 24-05-2003 at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur. The said report was transferred to Police Station Simga. The dead body of K.D. Saraswat cut into five pieces was recovered in parts i.e. on 02.06.2003 and 03.06.2003 vide Ex.P. 18 and Ex.P. 19 at the instance of the Appellants from the pits in the field of Appellant-Somdas Goswami. The dead body was identified to be that of K.D. Saraswat. On memorandum of Appellant-Somdas Goswami, Samsung mobile phone of K.D. Saraswat was recovered and seized on 02-06-2003 vide Ex.P-22 from the well of Punitram Sahu and bunch of keys and watch of the deceased were recovered from the well of Vinod Gupta in Silhati vide Ex.P-23 on 03-06-2003. Pen of the deceased was recovered vide Ex.P-27 on 05-06-2003 on the memorandum of Appellant Somdas Goswami from the road side between Gandai and Kawardha. Ashes of the clothes worn by the deceased were recovered vide Ex.P-24 from the pit in the Courtyard of Manoranjan Gupta. The blood stained Gandasa was recovered on memorandum of the Appellant Somdas Goswami from the field of Atiram Lodhi vide Ex.P-25. Smt. Padmini Saraswat identified vide Ex.P-13 the watch, mobile phone and key to be that of the deceased. Other keys opened the sealed almirah and box of the Principal, Government College, Simga. Panchnama Ex.P-12 was prepared by Naib Tahsildar A.S. Paikara P.W. 11. Blood stained soil and plain soil was also recovered from the pits. The Bajaj Boxer motorcycle of the Appellant-Somdas Goswami was seized vide Ex.P-28.
5. On 05.06.2003 Dr. Rajkumar Singh, P.W. 7, Professor and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine and toxicology at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Raipur examined the human remains of the body of the deceased K.D. Saraswat and opined that cause of death was due to injury on the thyroid cartilage i.e. compression effect which was antemortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. He opined that death may be caused due to asphyxia if the cartilage was compressed during life towards lumen of wind pipe. As the soft tissues at the site of the multiple sharp cut effects did not show any ecchymosis, no specific opinion could be given whether the body of K.D. Saraswat was hacked before or after his death. In another words, it could not be categorically determined whether sharp cut effects present in the multiple sites of the body were antemortem or postmortem in nature. Exact duration of death could also not be determined. Blood was not found on the Gandasa Vide report Ex.P-37 of the F.S.L., Raipur. After completion of investigation, the Appellants were prosecuted u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.
7. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. The Appellant-Somdas Goswami examined Dr. D.K. Rathore as D.W. 1 to show that the part-final withdrawal from G.P.F. Account was made on 08-11-2002 by K.D. Saraswat and that the relationship between the deceased and the Appellants was cordial. Appellant-Khoman Bharti did not adduce any evidence. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the following circumstances were proved by the prosecution:
A. That the pieces of the body of K.D. Saraswat were recovered on the memorandum of the Appellants on 02-06-2003 and 03-06-2003 from the pits in the field of Appellant Somdas Goswami in village Bhatgaon.
B. That death of K.D. Saraswat was as a result of compression effect due to antemortem injury on the thyroid cartilage.
C. That the deceased was last seen on 23-05-2003 going to the Police Station Simga with the Appellant Somdas Goswami on his motorcycle.
D. That on the memorandum of the Appellant Somdas Goswami, mobile phone of the deceased was seized from the well of one Punit Ram Sahu.
E. That the keys of the almirah and box of Principal, Government College, Simga were also recovered on the memorandum of Appellant Somdas Goswami.
F. That at the instance of the Appellant Somdas Goswami, Jugul had dug two pits in his field at Village Bhatgaon.
G. That after concealing the hacked parts of the body of K.D. Saraswat in the pits dug by Jugal P.W. 10 in the field, Appellant Somdas Goswami had asked Balesh Thakur, P.W. 5 to plough his field at Bhatgaon which he did at night till 2.30 A.M.
H. That the Appellants had strained relations with K.D. Saraswat and had motive to commit his murder.
On the above findings, the learned trial Judge held that the above links in the chain of circumstances were wholly consistent with the guilt of the Appellants and wholly inconsistent with their innocence and convicted the Appellants u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as aforesaid in para 1 (supra).
8. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-Somdas Goswami argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the time of death of K.D. Saraswat because Dr. R.K. Singh, P.W. 7 had categorically deposed in para 15 that it was not possible to ascertain the exact duration of death. Hacked parts of the dead body of the deceased-K.D. Saraswat were recovered from the field on 2nd and 3rd of June, 2003 vide Ex.P-18 and P-19 whereas admittedly the Appellant-Somdas Goswami had taken K.D. Saraswat to Police Station Simga on his motorcycle on 23-05-2003. There was absolutely no evidence to show with whom K.D. Saraswat had gone from the Police Station and where. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish proximity between the death of K.D. Saraswat and his being last seen with the Appellant-Somdas Goswami at the Police Station Simga on 23-05-2003. It was argued that the fact that no explanation was offered by the Appellant-Somdas Goswami as to the circumstances in which hacked pieces of the dead body of the deceased-K.D. Saraswat were recovered from his field, was not a circumstance pointing towards the irresistible conclusion that Appellant-Somdas Goswami was involved in the commission of murder of K.D. Saraswat. Reliance was placed on State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. and Subhash Chandra Nanda v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. AIR 2007 SCW 2226 . Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the opinion given by Dr. R.K. Singh, P.W. 7 as to the cause of death was a highly speculative opinion and prosecution had failed to establish that death of K.D. Saraswat was homicidal. Dr. R.K. Singh, P.W. 7 was also not certain whether hacking of the body of K.D. Saraswat was antemortem or postmortem. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the mere recovery of the parts of the dead body of K.D. Saraswat from the field of Somdas Goswami did not lead to an inference of guilt of the Appellant-Somdas Goswami u/s 302 of the I.P.C. Reliance was placed on
9. Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Khoman Bharti argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the complicity of Appellant-Khoman Bharti for the murder of K.D. Saraswat as there was absolutely no material to show that the Appellant Khoman Bharti was in any manner involved with the murder of K.D. Saraswat. The memorandum of Appellant Khoman Bharti was recorded at 1 P.M. on 02-06-2003 whereas the memorandum of Appellant Somdas Goswami had been recorded earlier vide Ex.P-17 at 12 Noon on 02-06-2003. It could not therefore be said that recovery of hacked parts of the dead body of K.D. Saraswat vide Ex.P-18 and P-19 was at the instance of Appellant-Khoman Bharti. Reliance was placed on Bali alias Balmiki and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1989 MPLJ 809. On these premises, it was urged that conviction of the Appellant-Khoman Bharti was liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned Government Advocate for the State argued in support of the impugned judgment while placing reliance on State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. 2000 SCC (Cri.) 1516, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh 2000 SCC (Cri.) 263 and
11. Having considered rival submissions, we have perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 243/2003 with utmost circumspection. Conviction of the Appellants rests on circumstantial evidence. In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. (supra), the principles of appreciation of circumstantial evidence were reiterated in paragraph 13 as under:
13. The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence and it is a well-settled proposition of law that when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulative, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
12. Bearing the above principles in mind, we shall now consider the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case. Smt. Padmini Saraswat P.W. 14 deposed that K.D. Saraswat was posted as Principal of the College at Simga and both the Appellants worked under him. She further stated that her husband would leave home by a scooter for the Bus-Stand at Raipur and after keeping his scooter at the Bus-Stand used to travel to and fro from Raipur to Simga by Bus. On returning from Simga, he would pick up his scooter from the Bus-Stand and come home. The above testimony is wholly unrebutted in cross-examination. It thus transpires that K.D. Saraswat used to catch the Bus from Simga to Raipur after duty hours.
13. There is overwhelming evidence on record to show that on 23.5.2003 the Appellant Somdas had taken K.D. Saraswat to the police station Simga on his motorcycle. Santosh Kumar Yadav, P.W. 13 has deposed that on 23-05-2003 while he was going towards the market in Simga, near saropi tank he saw Principal Saraswat sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle driven by Appellant Somdas and going towards township in Simga. Dhananjay Pandey P.W. 12, who is a clerk in the Government College, Simga, deposed that before going with Somdas Goswami on his Boxer motorcycle, K.D. Saraswat had told him that he was going to the police station for depositing the bundle of answer copies. Shesh Kumar Chandrawanshi P.W. 4 has also corroborated the testimony of Santosh Kumar Yadav P.W. 13. He further deposed that K.D. Saraswat had asked Bisnath P.W. 3 to take the bundle of answer copies from the police station to the University at Raipur and thereafter Bisnath P.W. 3 had also gone to the police station on his cycle. Bisnath P.W. 3 deposed that on 23.05.2003 K.D. Saraswat had asked him to reach the police station Simga and from there to go to University at Raipur for depositing the bundle of answer copies. He further deposed that K.D. Saraswat had gone to the police station Simga on the motorcycle of Appellant Somdas. It is vital to note that Bisnath P.W. 3 had deposed that on reaching the police station, he found K.D. Saraswat and Appellant Somdas sitting there and after entrusting answer copies to him K.D. Saraswat had told him that he would be late as he had some work to do and thereafter Appellant Somdas would leave him at the Bus-Stand. This testimony is wholly unrebutted in cross-examination and is clearly suggestive of the fact that K.D. Saraswat intended to be with the Appellant Somdas after leaving the police station Simga and the Appellant Somdas had assured to drop him at the Bus-Stand.
14. In his examination u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure in answer to question No. 8 and 10, the Appellant Somdas had admitted that he had taken K.D. Saraswat on his motorcycle to the police station on 23.05.2003. Now, if the testimony of Bisnath P.W. 3, Shesh Kumar Chandrawanshi P.W. 4, Santosh Kumar Yadav P.W. 13 and Dhananjay P.W. 12 is considered in the light of the testimony of Smt. Padmini Saraswat P.W. 14, it would transpire that after finishing work at the police station Simga, K.D. Saraswat would have left the police station on the motor cycle of Appellant Somdas and in no other manner. The explanation of Appellant Somdas u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure that after leaving K.D. Saraswat at the Police Station Simga he went away is thus rendered unacceptable. K.D. Saraswat had to go the Bus Stand to go to Raipur by Bus. He was the Principal of the Government College, Simga and had gone to the police station Simga with Appellant Somdas on his motorcycle. The testimony of Bisnath P.W. 3 proves that K.D. Saraswat had told him that he had some work and would come to Raipur afterwards and Appellant Somdas would leave him at the Bus-Stand. Therefore, there is no scope for any doubt that on 23.05.2003 K.D. Saraswat had, after entrusting answer copies to Bisnath P.W. 3 at the police station, left the police station with the Appellant Somdas on his motorcycle. We are of the considered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution leads to the irresistible conclusion that K.D. Saraswat had accompanied the Appellant Somdas on his motorcycle from the police station Simga on 23.05.2003. Appellant Somdas did not offer any explanation as to where he took K.D. Saraswat on his motorcycle from Police Station on 23-05-2003. For certain K.D. Saraswat did not reach the Bus Stand Simga for catching the bus to Raipur on 23-05-2003 after leaving the police station on the motorcycle of the Appellant Somdas.
15. It is true that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. The Court can, having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. draw an inference from proved facts on the process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion. In State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court had observed as under:
The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be casualty.
Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.
In this context the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be utilised. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to drawn a different inference.
16. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (Supra), the Supreme Court had observed as under:
Three possibilities are there when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by him. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal Court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal Court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the Court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well-justified course to be adopted by the criminal Court that the concealment was made by him. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
17. Dr. Kamal Narayan Arya P.W. 15 stated that at the instance of both Appellants several parts of the dead body of K.D. Saraswat were recovered from the two pits in the field of Appellant Somdas at village Bhatgaon on 02-06-2003 and 03-06-2003 and thereafter Panchnama Ex.P.18 and P-19 was prepared. J.L. Dhruv, Naib Tehsildar P.W. 17 deposed that both the Appellants had, on 02.06.2003 and 03-06-2003 accompanied him with the police, to the field of Appellant Somdas in village Bhatgaon where both the Appellants had pointed out the place where parts of the dead body of K.D. Saraswat were buried. He has proved Panchnama Ex.P. 10 and has again categorically stated in paragraph 3 that both the Appellants had, on 02-06-2003 after pointing to the place in the field of Appellant Somdas where hacked body of deceased was buried, taken them on 03-06-2003 to another field of Somdas in village Bhatgaon and pointed to the place where some of the parts of the body of the deceased were buried. This witness has proved Panchnama Ex.P. 18 and P-19. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve that the hacked parts of the dead body of K.D. Saraswat were recovered from the field of Appellant Somdas at two places after digging at the places pointed out by the Appellants. Dr. Kamal Narayan Arya P.W. 15 deposed that both the Appellants had, on being questioned by the police, told that body parts of the body of the deceased had been buried in the field of Appellant Somdas at Bhatgaon and on such memorandum Ex.P. 16 and Ex.P. 17 both Appellants had, after being taken to the field of Somdas, pointed out to the police the place where the body parts of the deceased had been buried. He has further testified that Gandasa was recovered at the instance of the Appellant Somdas vide Ex.P.25. Keys and the watch of the deceased were recovered from the well vide Ex.P.23 and mobile phone was recovered from the well of one Sahu vide seizure memo Ex.P.22. Ranjit Chauhan P.W. 2 has deposed that the sim card No. 90667 was registered in the name of K.D. Saraswat. Testimony of Dr. Kamal Narayan Arya P.W. 15 proves that he had identified that the body parts recovered from the field of Appellant Somdas were that of K.D. Saraswat. The prosecution evidence thus proves that after recording memorandum of the Appellants, they had taken the police to the field of Appellant Somdas and had pointed to the place where the parts of dead body of K.D. Saraswat were hidden in the pit. It is thus established beyond doubt that at the instance of the Appellants, the hacked parts of the dead body of K.D. Saraswat were recovered on 02.06.2003 and 03.06.2003 vide Ex.P. 16 and Ex.P. 17 from the field of Appellant Somdas.
18. 23.05.2003 was a Friday. Jugul P.W. 10 has deposed in paragraph 4 that on Saturday the Appellant Somdas had asked him to dig two pits in his field at village Bhatgaon of the size of 2 x 2 feet on the assertion that electricity poles had to be fixed therein. He categorically admitted that when he dug two pits in the field of Appellant Somdas, the field had not been ploughed. No explanation was forthcoming from the Appellant, Somdas as to why did he ask Jugul P.W. 10 to dig two pits of the size of 2 x 2 feet in his field. Being his servant Jugul P.W. 10 was highly interested in protecting Appellant Somdas and would not make a false assertion against Appellant Somdas.
19. The wholly unrebutted testimony of Balesh Thakur P.W. 5 proves that at the instance of the Appellant Somdas he had ploughed the field of Appellant Somdas in village Bhatgaon in the night and the police had questioned him 4-5 days thereafter. It is established beyond doubt that the field where the body parts of the deceased were buried by the Appellants was ploughed by Balesh Thakur P.W. 5 till late at night. The Appellants by virtue of their special knowledge regarding the place where the hacked body parts of K.D. Sarswat were buried and recovered at their instance from the field of Appellant Somdas have failed to offer any explanation which may drive the Court to draw a different inference. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has, after taking into consideration the law as to discovery of fact u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, rightly dealt with the evidence relating to the discovery of the parts of the body of K.D. Saraswat from the field of Appellant Somdas on the memorandum of the Appellants in great details. We find no reason for taking a different view.
20. The argument that prosecution has failed to establish that K.D. Saraswat died a homicidal death can also not be countenanced. Dr. R.K. Singh P.W. 7 on examination of the neck vertebrae deposed as under:
The above opinion shows beyond doubt that the injury on the thyroid cartilage was ante-mortem and was sufficient to cause death. So far as the sharp cut effects present on multiple sites of body, Dr. R.K. Singh opined that since soft tissues did not show any ecchymosis, it could not be categorically determined whether they were ante-mortem or post-mortem meaning thereby that the hacking of the body of K.D. Saraswat into many parts by Gandasa could also have been post-mortem but so far as the injury found on thyroid cartilage is concerned, Dr. R.K. Singh was, due to presence of reddish ecchymosis in the soft tissues, positive that death could have occurred as a result of this injury which was ante-mortem. In our considered opinion, the testimony of Dr. R.K. Singh establishes that death of K.D. Saraswat had occurred due to Asphyxia as a result of pressing of the thyroid cartilage and was ante-mortem in nature. It is thus established that K.D. Saraswat had died a homicidal death.
21. The testimony of Dr. Kamal Narayan Arya P.W. 15 and the testimony of Inspector Janiram Dhruv P.W. 21 proves that at the instance of Appellant Somdas cell phone of K.D. Saraswat was recovered from well of Punit Ram Sahu vide seizure memo Ex.P.22 and keys to the almirah and the box of Principal, Government College Simga were also recovered at the instance of the Appellant Somdas Goswami from the well of one Vinod Kumar Gupta vide Ex.P.23. Testimony of A.S. Paikara, P.W. 11 proves that the keys recovered at the instance of Appellant Somdas fitted and unlocked the almirah and box of K.D. Saraswat''s office.
22. Smt. Padmini Saraswat P.W. 14 deposed in paragraph 8 that K.D. Saraswat had strained relations with the Appellants because the amount of part final of withdrawal of G.P.F. by K.D. Saraswat had been taken by the Appellants and K.D. Saraswat suspected the involvement of the Appellants for the theft of computer from Government College Simga.
23. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, the following facts emerge:
(A) that the deceased was last seen in the company of Appellant Somdas as he had accompanied Somdas to the police station Simga on his motorcycle;
(B) that K.D. Saraswat had told Bisnath P.W. 3 at the police station Simga that he would come later after finishing some work and the Appellant Somdas would drop him at the Bus-Stand; which leads to the irresistible inference that the deceased had accompanied Appellant Somdas from police station Simga on his motor cycle but did not take the Bus to Raipur;
(C) that Appellant Somdas did not offer any explanation for asking Jugul P.W. 10 to dig two pits in his field in village Bhatgaon, a day after the occurrence;
(D) that thereafter Balesh Thakur P.W. 5 had ploughed the field of Appellant Somdas at night for which the Appellants did not offer any explanation;
(E) the hacked body parts of K.D. Saraswat were recovered at the instance of the Appellants from the pits in the field of Appellant Somdas for which no explanation was offered by the Appellants;
(F) that the cell phone of K.D. Saraswat was also recovered at the instance of Appellant Somdas from the well of Punit Ram Sahu for which no explanation was offered by the Appellant Somdas;
(G) keys of the almirah and box of the Principal Government College Simga were also recovered at the instance of the Appellants;
(H) that the deceased K.D. Saraswat had strained relationship with the Appellants.
24. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has in this case presented such reliable and formidable circumstances forming into a complete chain and pointing out unerringly to the irresistible conclusion that K.D. Saraswat was murdered by the Appellants and that thereafter the Appellant Somdas had asked Jugul P.W. 10 to dig two pits in his field at village Bhatgaon and had thereafter buried the hacked body parts of K.D. Saraswat in those pits. Thereafter, the Appellant Somdas had got the field ploughed by Balesh Thakur P.W. 5 at night. The police had recovered the body parts of K.D. Saraswat from the pits at the instance of the Appellants. Criminal justice would become a casualty if we take a view different than the one taken by the trial Court and exonerate the culprits of such a grotesque crime. From the above mentioned circumstances, it must be held that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proving the guilt of both Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered opinion that the circumstances mentioned above taken cumulatively form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the murder of K.D. Saraswat was committed by none else but the Appellants who had, for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder, hacked the body of K.D. Saraswat and dumped it in the pits in the field of Appellant Somdas and the circumstances were incapable of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the Appellants and were wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the Appellants. The circumstances mentioned above have been cogently and firmly established. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellants u/s 302 and 201 of the I.P.C.
25. In the result, both the criminal appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.
