1 2025:CGHC:42903-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1190 of 2023 Uddayan Das S/o Late Birendra Kumar Das, aged about 37 years R/o M.I.G.- 62, Sector-3 A, Saket Nagar, Police Station Govindpura, Bhopal, District - Bhopal (M.P.) wrongly mentioned as (C.G.). ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police of Police Station - D.D. Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J . 25.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘CrPC’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 122/2027, whereby the Special Judge ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 has convicted and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently in the following manner : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months U/s 201 of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 3 years and fine amount of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 05.02.2017, Sub- Inspector Kaushik Hazra of Police Station, Bankuru (W. Bengal) informed Police Station DD Nagar Raipur through telephone that accused Udayan Das son of Virendra Das in Crime No. 05/2017, Sections 365, 368 IPC of the Police Station area had murdered his parents Smt. Indrani Das and Virendra Das in the year 2010 and buried their bodies. It has been further stated that during the investigation of Crime No. 05/2017 under Sections 365, 368, 302 IPC registered in Police Station Bankura (W. Bengal), accused Udayan Das gave a memorandum statement that in the year 2010 he had dug a pit in the name of septic tank in the garden of his house in Sundar Nagar, Raipur and had buried the bodies of his mother Indrani Das and father Virendra Kumar Das and covered it with soil. On the basis of the above memorandum statement of the accused, following the procedure as per law, permission was taken from SDM and excavation was done in the garden, in which on the basis of clothes and ornaments of human skeletons found 3 from under the ground, the accused identified them and said that they were the skeletons of his mother Indrani Das and father Virendra Kumar Das. Later, this was also confirmed by the real sister of the accused, Shipra. In this case, separate rural inquests were registered and Panchnama proceedings were conducted through Executive Magistrate. Photographs of the excavation proceedings were taken and videography was done. Postmortem of the human skeleton found from the spot was conducted. On the basis of Dehati Merg, numbered Merg No. 09/2017 and 10/2017 were registered at police station DD Nagar at number and Crime No. 45/2017, under Section 302, 201 IPC was registered as the crime of murder was found to have been committed. The accused was brought to Raipur on transit remand on 17.02.2017 and presented before the concerned Magistrate and after formal arrest, the blood sample of the accused was taken by the doctors after obtaining permission from the Court, which was deposited in FSL through Superintendent of Police Raipur for DNA matching with the bones recovered from the crime scene. The seized properties in the case were sent to FSL through the memorandum of Superintendent of Police and were tested. According to the DNA report received later, the accused was found to be the biological son of the human skeleton recovered from the spot. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC and after completion of other necessary proceedings/formalities of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302, 201 IPC was presented against the accused in the 4 Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, from where, after surrender, the case was transferred to other courts and later on received on transfer to the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur, wherein trial was conducted. 3. When the charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused and read out to him, he denied the charges and claimed trial. The accused in his statement though has expressed his innocence and said that he had been falsely implicated, but no witness has been produced as defence witness on his behalf. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, Nemichand Mandavi (PW-1), Shashank Shukla (PW-2), Harish Pandey (PW-3), Monu Vaishnav (PW-4), Radheshyam Goel (PW-5), Shailesh Kekre (PW-6), Amit Verma (PW-7), Govind Verma (PW-8), Mukesh Kumar Yadav (PW-9), Vinod Yadav (PW-10), Divya Prakash Gupta (PW-11), Gajendra Kumar (PW-12), Shyamal Dutta (PW-13), Firoz Khan (PW-14), Ramkishore Soni (PW-15), Mithlesh Kumar Pandey (PW-16), Bharatlal Sahu (PW-17), Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-18), Yogendra Verma (PW-19), Vibhor Agarwal (PW-20), J.P. Statement of Pathak (PW-21), Ramkishun Nirmalkar (PW-22), Sunita Kanwar (PW-23), Dr. S. K. Bagh (PW-24) and Prithvi Dubey (PW-25) have been recorded and in support of the documents are notices under section 175 CrPC for appearance for map panchayatnama, Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, map panchayatnama Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. Notice Ex.P-5, Seizure 5 Memorandum Ex.P-6, Site plan of the incident Ex.P-7, Identification Panchnama Ex.P-8, Seizure Memorandum Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10, Consent Letter Ex.P-11, Notice Ex.P-11A, Pre- excavation Panchnama of the incident Ex.P-12, Excavation Panchnama Ex.P-13, Memorandum Statement of the accused Ex.P-14, Notice Ex.P-15, Pre-search Panchnama Ex.P-16, Seizure Memorandum Ex.P-17, Seizure Memorandum Ex.P-19, Identification Panchnama Ex.P-20, Notice Ex.P-21, Seizure Memorandum Ex.P-22, Certificate of Section 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.P-23, Seizure Memorandum Ex.P-24, Statement of accused under Section 164 CrPC in Court L.D.J.N-3 Bankura dated 16.02.2017 Ex.P-25 and Ex.P-26, Patwari map of the place of incident Ex.P-27, Postmortem report Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28, Application for postmortem Ex.P-30, Letter written by Sub- Divisional Magistrate Ex.P-30A, Letter written by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Raipur to Police Station Incharge DD Nagar Raipur Ex.P-31, Notice Ex.P-31 including Ex.P-36, Copy of Diary Sanha Ex.P-36C, 37C, 38C, 39C, 40C, 41C, 42C and 43C, Rural Death Intimation Ex.P-45 and 46, First Information Report Ex.P-47, Consent letter for blood sample Ex.P-48, site map of the incident Ex.P-48A, consent letter of the accused Ex.P-49, arrest memo Ex.P-49A, application written to State Forensic Laboratory Raipur Ex.P-50 and Ex.P-52, exhibit receipt Ex.P-51 and Ex.P-53, DNA report Ex.P-54 have been submitted. Apart from the above documents shown in the case, the prosecution has also submitted shop establishment registration certificate GR Gems Jewelers 6 Bhopal Article A-1 and Photographs of excavation of the incident spot Articles A-2 to A-17 have been marked. 5. The Special Judge upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no clinching evidence available in the case to connect the appellant in crime in question and the case of prosecution is totally based on circumstantial evidences and there is no eyewitness to the incident. In the case of circumstantial nature, the chain of circumstance has to be completed at every edged which is not present in the case in hand. It has been submitted that the memorandum statement taken under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not admissible as evidence for confession of crime. He would also submit that the learned trial Court has completely failed to properly consider the evidence available in the case and looking to the evidence which is available before learned trial Court there is nothing believable and trust worthy evidence to show that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased and there is no any motive is proved and even then the learned trial Court has passed this order on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The evidence available on the face of record are shaky in nature and there are 7 several contradictions and omissions are found in the statement of the witnesses and the same were not considered by the learned trial Court in proper manner, thus the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court below is illegal. Therefore, the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent opposed the aforesaid submissions and would submit that there is sufficient evidence on record to show the involvement of the appellant. He would further submit that the chain of circumstantial evidence has been proved by the prosecution on the basis of which the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant. He would also submit that on the basis of statement of the appellant recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Court of L.D.J.N-3, Bankura (W.B.), wherein he has made confessional statement that he had murdered his parents in the year 2010 and buried their dead bodies in the septic tank, the dead bodies of the deceased were recovered and were identified as biological parents of the accused. Thus, the prosecution has tendered sufficient and credible evidence for proving the commission of offence by the accused/appellant. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and has recorded the finding of the guilt of accused as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration would be whether the skeleton recovered from the septic tank were of the dead bodies of the parents of the accused ? 10. According to the prosecution story, the present case arises out of order dated 05.01.2017 of the Court of L.D.J.N.-3 Bankura Presiding Officer Sangita Chatterjee, whereby the statement of accused Udayan Das was recorded under Section 164 CrPC in the G.R.Case No. 18/2017 Reference One Case No. 5/2017 dated 05.01.2017 under Sections 365, 368, 302, 201 IPC. 11. Sub-Inspector of Bankura police station Kaushik Hazra informed the police station DD Nagar Raipur through telephone on 05.02.2017 that Udayan Das S/o Virendra Das, accused in Crime No. 05/2017, Section 365, 368, IPC of the police station area, murdered his parents Smt. Indrani Das and Virendra Das in the year 2010 and destroyed their dead bodies and buried them. On receiving the above information, Sahna No. 5 and 6 were registered by DD Nagar Raipur police station. After this, the information received from Bankura police station was recorded and the police station in-charge DD Nagar Raipur informed the city ASP. He directed that machines and laborers for digging the land should be kept ready in the police station. Dehati Marg Intimation was registered, on the basis of which, Dehati Marg 9 Intimation Ex.P-45 of Virendra Das and Dehati Marg Intimation Ex.P-46 of Smt. Indrani Das were registered by Police Station DD Nagar Raipur on 05.02.2017. Accordingly, on 05.02.2017, the police station DD Nagar gave an application under Section 176(3) of IPC to the SDM Raipur and sought permission for taking out the dead bodies for investigation, on which SDM Raipur, on 05.02.2017 itself, ordered the police station in-charge DD Nagar vide Ex.P-31 to take out the dead bodies and conduct investigation under Section 176 (3) of IPC. After this, on 05.02.2017, police station in-charge DD Nagar Raipur issued notices Ex.P-32 to P-36 to Banarasi Dhruv, Sanju Manikpuri, Kamal, Nemichand Mandavi, Birju Singh to be present for digging out the dead body. 12. On 05.02.2017, Pre-excavation Panchnama Ex.P-12 was prepared by Inspector Prithvi Dubey of police station D.D. Nagar Raipur Camp Sundar Nagar at the place mentioned by the accused in presence of witnesses Nemichand and Kamal Dhruv at the site of the incident. After this, on 05.02.2017 itself, on the indication of the accused, in presence of Deputy Tehsildar Yogeshwar Verma PW-18, the present house owner Harish Pandey son of late Bharat Ram Pandey was informed and after digging about 8-9 feet of the garden situated on his house land Khasra No. 292/18 and 291/19 with the help of shovel and JCB, a skeleton-like body of a man wearing blue pants and shirt, covered with mud, was found, which the accused said to be the body of his 10 father. Next to the said body, a skeleton-like body of a woman wearing yellow salwar suit was found, which was kept in a polythene bag. Identification Panchnama Ex.P-8 was prepared. Soil was seized from near both the bodies as per seizure memo Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10. The inquest of both the bodies were prepared vide Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 and the bodies were sent for post mortem. 13. According to Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-5), he obtained the consent of the accused for DNA test as per Ex.P-49 and collected his blood sample and gave it to the police, seizure memo of which is Ex.P- 24. As per this witness, he in the presence of witnesses, has collected the blood sample and sealed with vide Ex.P-48. Investigation Officer PW-24, Prithvi Dubey, Retd. Assistant Superintendent of Police, while being posted as SHO of Police Station DD Nagar in the year 2017, sent the blood sample of the accused, taken from the crime scene in Crime No. 45/2017, for DNA testing in a sealed condition to the Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur through the Superintendent of Police, as per the written complaint Ex.P-52, the acknowledgement of which is Ex.P.-53. This witness also stated that the DNA report was sent by the Forensic Science Laboratory in three pages, which is Ex.P.- 54. According to the said report, the accused has been found to be the biological son of deceased Indrani Das and deceased Virendra Das. Thus, it is proved that the two human skeletons 11 seized from the crime scene were of the accused's parents, deceased Indrani Das and deceased Virendra Das respectively. 14. Now it has to be seen in this case whether the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal in nature? 15. Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-17) has stated that he was posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur on 06 February 2017. On the said date, by constable Bharat Saham, No. 2304 from DD Nagar police station, the dead body of Virendra Kumar S/o Jitendra Das, age 70 years, address- Sunder Nagar Raipur was presented before him for examination along with the postmortem application form. The body was identified by Bharat Sahu constable. According to the witness, he found in the external examination that the body was in the state of a male skeleton, which was wrapped in white cloth and black polythene, in which there was a plastic bag. Red and black half shirt and black full pant which were torn vertically in the front part of both the thighs. A black leather belt was tied to the pant, which had sand particles in it. A black thread was wrapped four times on one wrist. A broken long black thread was on the body. There were three vertical torn marks on the back of the left thigh. There were two amulets. The lower jaw appeared to be of an old man. The lower part of the forehead was missing. The bones on both sides of the upper part of the cheek were broken. The lower part of the face in the skull was missing. The bone below the ear was broken. The 12 lower part of the thigh bone was broken. The upper jaw was broken. One end of the collar bone of the chest was broken. Both the bones of the upper part of the back were broken. Both the first ribs were broken. The bone in the middle of the chest was missing. 21 ribs of the rib cage were broken. The upper part of the bones on both sides of the arms were broken. The spinal cord was present which was in broken parts. The left hip bone was broken. The left thigh bone was broken at the top and bottom. Both the bones above the wrist of the right hand were broken. The upper part of both the bones below the knee was broken and the lower part of the bone on the left side was broken. The lower and upper part of the bone on the left side was broken. The bones of the palm and the toe were present. An under wear was found whose size was 52 cm and its elastic was completely stretched. Along with it, there were also two cement bags, a plastic bag and cello tape. Due to decay, only the bone structure was left. The body had undergone natural decay which was due to insects etc. inside the ground. It was not possible to say whether the injury to the bones was before death or after death. The bones were kept safe for DNA test to identify the dead body. The plastic bag, cello tape, amulet, bones, clothes, cement bag found were sealed and handed over to the constable. Due to the condition of the dead body, no opinion could be given regarding the cause and nature of death. The time of death matched with the time of incident given by the police. The postmortem report given by them is Ex.P-28. 13 16. The witness further stated that on the said date, the said constable presented the skeleton of deceased Indrani, wife of Virendra Das, age 60 years, address- Sunder Nagar Raipur along with the postmortem application form before him for examination. The body was identified by constable Bharat Sahu. In the external examination, he found that it was the skeleton of a 60-year-old woman, whose bones were in a brittle state. The human skeleton was wrapped in black cloth and black polythene. A yellow salwar suit was on the body, the middle part of the back of which was torn. A yellow dupatta and bra and cello tape were with the body. Marks of knife attack were visible on the dupatta. The skull was in two parts, in which the hair of the head was of a woman of 8 or 9 cm length. Only some parts of both the jaws were present. Among the bones of the body, the arm bone, the bone below both the knees, the hip and back bone, the spine and the ribs were broken. There was only a body of bones. For DNA, the bones, white and black hair of the head, a cement bag, clothes, cello tape were returned to the constable after securing and sealing them. According to the witness, no opinion could be given regarding the cause and nature of death in view of the condition of the body. The time of death matched the time of the incident told by the police. The post mortem report given by him is Ex.P-29. 17. The said doctor witness has accepted the defence's suggestion in cross-examination that he cannot tell how and in what manner the two deceased died. He cannot even tell the cause of death. He 14 cannot even tell today whether the two skeletons were brought to him by the police in a sealed condition or in an open condition. The skeletons were not identified in front of him by their relatives. 18. Thus, from perusal of the statement of the medical witness and the evidence given by him, the postmortem report Ex.P-07 and the memorandum statement of the accused Ex.P-14, it is not possible to give an opinion regarding the cause and nature of death of both the human skeletons. Since the human skeletons of both the deceased have been recovered from the scene of incident, in such a situation it is natural that the chest and arm portion of their bodies had completely decayed and merged with the soil, but the Medical Officer has stated that there are injury marks on the skeletons found of the deceased and the accused in his memorandum has stated that the deceased were killed by strangulating them and after their death they were buried by digging a pit at the scene of incident. No such argument or evidence has been presented by the defence that at the time of the incident the accused was not with his parents and the neighbours around their house were not aware that the death of the accused's parents was due to normal circumstances or an accident, there is lack of evidence in this regard. Then, on the basis of medical examination and memorandum of the accused, in the absence of contradictory evidence, it can be concluded that the accused had murdered his parents and buried their bodies. 15 Thus, it can be presumed that the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. 19. The question now has to be considered whether the accused himself killed his parents Indrani Das and Virendra Kumar Das by strangulating ? 20. In this regard, there is no eyewitness in the case. The case of the prosecution is completely based on circumstantial evidence. It has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621, it was laid down by the Surpeme Court that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to 16 negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 21. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 22. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a 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 cumulatively 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 17 (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the 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. 23. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.LJ 1104, it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 24. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis 18 than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 25. 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.” 26. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 681, the Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case 19 based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.” 27. The principles of circumstantial evidence is reiterated in Nizam and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550, wherein the Supreme Court has held that:- “8. Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his innocence.” 28. Reverting to the present case, as far as the motive of the accused to commit the crime of murder in question is concerned, in this regard, a perusal of the memorandum statement Ex.P-14 of the accused certified in the case shows that the accused has stated the motive of murder that he got admission in Computer 20 Science branch in Rungta College Bhilai through management quota by paying Rs.2 lakhs, where he got a break in three subjects in the first year. By doing so, he became a year back in the third year. But he kept telling his family members that he is still studying in college. When his parents used to ask him about his campus and his job, he told them that he has not completed his course yet and used to avoid it, he got upset on hearing all this. He did not tell anyone about the year back even in the fourth year and continued going to college. He wanted a life of open freedom. One day his father received a call from Rungta College that his son has been given a year back in the third year. When his father asked him about this, he said that someone must be joking. He thought that he would have to do something and further told the fact of killing his mother and father. 29. Thus, the accused having a motive for the murder in question is shown by his memorandum statement. Although no prosecution witness has made any statement in this regard, it cannot be naturally assumed that any witness would know about the motive on this point. In such a situation, such a statement cannot be expected from any witness, but a presumption can be made against the accused regarding the motive for the murder. 30. According to the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution in the case, on 05.01.2017 in the case G.R.Case No. 18/2017 reference one case no. 5/2017 dated 05.01.2017 under sections 365, 368, 302, 201 IPC, by order dated 05.01.2017 in the 21 court of L.D.J.N-3 Bankura presiding officer Sangeeta Chatterjee, the statement of accused Udayan Das was recorded under Section 164 CrPC and after the memorandum statement, on the information of Sub-Inspector Kaushik Hazra, the daily diary number-5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15 and rural death intimation Ex.P.45, 46 were registered in the police station DD Nagar Raipur, after which the body excavation panchnama Ex.P.12, body excavation of the incident spot was registered. Panchnama Ex.P-13. Photographs of excavation of scene of crime number 45/2017 of police station DD Nagar, articles A-2 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, map of skeleton prepared on the identification of the deceased, Panchnama Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. Skeleton identification Panchnama Ex.P-8 after excavation of the deceased, seizure memo Ex.P-9 and 10, after death of the deceased, accused selling the house situated in Sundar Nagar, Raipur in the name of his mother Indrani Das to Harish Pandey, thereafter going to Bhopal and living thereafter, the circumstances of seizure of jewellery of his parents, bank pass book and pension related documents from the accused and the people living near the house of the deceased not knowing about their death in normal circumstances or accidental death have been proved by the prosecution, in which all the doubts are placed against the accused and his innocence in the crime in question is not proved. Thus, the prosecution has proved the circumstances beyond doubt in a series of links, which proves that apart from accused Udayan Das, no one else has killed his father Virendra Das and 22 mother Indrani Das. Accordingly, this fact is established beyond doubt that the accused himself killed Indrani Das and Virendra Das and buried their bodies in a bin in the courtyard of the house with the help of a labourer. Moreover, the accused/appellant has also not given any plausible explanation as to how the dead bodies of his parents were found in a bin in the courtyard of their house, which was later on sold by him to other person. 31. After the above mentioned evidence analysis, the prosecution has been successful in proving that during the rainy season of 2010, the accused had intentionally and knowingly killed his father Virendra Das and mother Smt. Indrani Das in Raipur Police Station BD Nagar area and as per the above, on the second day of the murder, knowing that he has been accused of murdering his parents, he buried the dead bodies of his parents in a bin with the help of a labourer. 32. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant. 33. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 34. The accused / appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the 23 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2023. 35. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra