The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented must establish guilt conclusively.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2013 & 26.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Uluberia, Howrah in Sessions Trial No.260/2007 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, both the sentences run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that the appellant was married to Sampa Polley alias Tia, daughter of Monoranjan Maity, P.W.1 ten years ago. Two children were born to couple. Four years prior to the incident the couple started residing with Monoranjan. On 06.04.2007 at 6 A.M. Niranjan Maity, the brother of Monoranjan found the dead body of Shampa floating in the pond. He raised hue and cry. Monoranjan and others rushed to the spot and found injuries on the body of the victim. At this juncture Chameli, P.W.2 younger daughter of Monoranjan disclosed at about 3 A.M. when she went out to answer nature's call she saw the appellant assault the victim on her head 3/4 times with a weapon. Over this issue, written complaint was lodged by Monoranjan at Shyampur P.S. resulting in registration in Shyampur P.S Case No.52/07 dated 06.04.2017 under Section 302/201 of IPC against the appellant. In the course of investigation, appellant was arrested. On the same day, investigating officer seized a white and black striped shirt bearing mark 'Sish Mahal' allegedly belonging to the appellant near the bank of a tank owned by one Manik Hazra at Gazipara. On 1.04.2007 one Mugur was recovered from the varanda of the appellant. Serologist report with regard to the seized shirt and Mugur were obtained and charge sheet was filed in the instant case under Sections 302/201 of IPC against the appellant.

3. The case of the appellant was committed to the court of sessions and transferred to the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Uluberia, Howrah for trial and disposal.

4. Charges were framed under Sections under Sections 302/201 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses to establish its case and exhibited a number of documents.

6. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.

7. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2013 & 26.03.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

8. As the appeal was instituted pursuant to a letter received from the appellant from jail, Ms. Chatterjee was requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae.

9. Ms. Chatterjee, learned counsel argued that the evidence of the eyewitness (P.W. 2) is opposed based to normal human conduct and highly improbable. Though P.W.2 claimed to an eyewitness of assault on her sister, she kept mum till her dead body was recovered couple of hours after the incident. Evidence of P.Ws.4 & 5 who claimed that they saw the appellant returning from the pond is also unnatural and highly improbable. They heard cries "Mago Babago" from the house but did not seek help from other inmates. Their versions are also at variance with their earlier statements to the police. That apart, medical evidence of P.M. doctor, P.W.13 shows that the victim suffered incised injuries which is not inconsistent with the prosecution case involving assault by a Mugur which is not a sharp cutting weapon. Evidence on record with regard to the ownership of seized shirt is not unreliable. Recovery of Mugur took place four days after arrest of the appellant and that too from the pl