JUDGMENT

Ranjan Gogoi, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment dated 10.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the learned trial court under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused-appellant, Chunda Murmu, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC whereas under Sections 364 and 201 of IPC each, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith fine. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, inter-alia, is that on 15.03.1990, one Anil Mardi, P.W.7, lodged a complaint in the Habibpur Police Station to the effect that his sister – Kamla, who was married to the accused appellant for about six years, had been missing since 10.03.1990. It had been further stated, in the complaint filed, that though the complainant had searched for his sister, her whereabouts were not known and that the complainant suspected that she was murdered by her husband, namely, the accused-appellant.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, P.W.16 – P.K. Dutta, Sub- Inspector of Police, filed the formal FIR – Ex.6 on the basis of which Habibpur P.S. Case No. 17/90 was registered. In the course of investigation, the accused-appellant was arrested on 15.3.1990 at Palashdanga, whereafter, he was brought to Habibpur Police Station. According to the prosecution, the accused-appellant, while in custody, had made a statement that he had murdered his wife and had kept the dead body concealed in the khuti ghar of his father at village Horegram. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the accused, the dead body of deceased Kamla was recovered from the khuti ghar of one Charan Murmu, the father of the accused-appellant, in the presence of seven witnesses including the Block Development Officer, Shri Manas Kumar Mandal, P.W.15. Thereafter inquest was held on the dead body which was sent for postmortem examination. In the report of the post mortem, the cause of death was mentioned by the Doctor as homicidal throttling. In the course of investigation, the I.O. – PW 16, also seized some mud stained hay from the Kuthi ghar, some earth etc. in the presence of witnesses vide Seizure List Ex.5. The wearing apparels of the deceased, i.e. mud stained green check saree, mud stained green petty coat, black blouse stained with mud were also seized in the presence of witnesses vide Seizure List Ex.3. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the appellant-accused and his father Charan Murmu under Sections 302/364/201/34 of IPC. The father of accused-appellant died and charges under the aforesaid Sections of the IPC were framed against the accused appellant.

4. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial, 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none by the defence. However, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the course of which he had stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Thereafter, at the conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant had been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

5. We have been elaborately taken through the entire evidence on record by the learned counsel for the appellant. A consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case would go to show that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the prosecution has sought to bring home the charges levelled on the basis of certain circumstances that have been unfolded by the witnesses examined. Having considered the evidence on record, we are of the view that in the present case the prosecution relies on the following circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused:

(1) The accused-appellant and the