In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances which are required to be proved in order to complete the chain of circumstances towards the guilt of the accused. If the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation for the circumstances, the court may draw an adverse inference against him.

JUDGMENT

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

1. The appellant is represented by Ms. Jharna Biswas, learned amicus curiae as appointed by this Court and the State is represented by Ms. Zareen N. Khan learned Counsel and Mr. Ashok Das, learned Counsel.

2. This present appeal is now taken up for hearing. Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned advocates for the State at length.

3. The present appeal is now taken up for passing judgment.

4. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2001 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2001 as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1997 whereby and where under the said Court by the impugned judgment and order of sentence found the present appellant guilty under Sections 302/201 IPC and thus, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- I.D. to suffer R.I. for 60 days more for the offence committed by him under Section 302 IPC and to suffer R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.D. to suffer R.I. for 30 days more for the commission of the offence under Section 201 IPC with a further direction that both the sentences as awarded by the said court would run concurrently.

5. The convict Rabin Malik felt aggrieved and thus, preferred the instant appeal.

6. For effective adjudication of the instant appeal, the facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid criminal case is required to be dealt with in a nutshell. One Gosta Majhi, son of late Hiru Majhi of village- Rashidpur, P.S. Jangipara, Dist- Hooghly gave an oral statement on 17.04.1994 which was reduced into writing by the O.C. of the aforesaid P.S. stating, inter alia, that the marriage of his eldest daughter Budi Malik @ Sundari was solemnized with the present appellant only a month back.

It was the further version of the defacto complainant that after marriage his said daughter started living at her matrimonial home and on the day of the incident, i.e., on 16.04.1994 his said daughter and his son-in-law Rabin Malik came together to his home at about 8.00 p.m. After taking some refreshment when both the present appellant and his wife were about to leave, the defacto complainant requested them to stay, but the present appellant was not agreeable to stay and, thereafter, they left the home of the defacto complainant by riding a bicycle through the road approaching Damodar dam.

It was the further version of the defacto complainant that at the time of their departure, he made an attempt to restrain the present appellant not to go through the road approchaing the said dam as it was lonely at night, but in spite of such request he did not pay any heed to such request.

It was the further version of the defacto complainant that within a hour thereafter, the present appellant again came back to his home and disclosed that when he and his wife were crossing the Damodar dam, some unknown miscreants had snatched his wife as well as his bicycle. He further stated that after getting such information, the defacto complainant and his co-villagers rushed to the said dam and in course of searching, the dead body of the victim (Budi) was recovered and it was noticed that there are several wounds in her person and he at that time also noticed that bicycle of inlaw was lying by the side of the said dead body. It has also been stated by the defacto complainant that after becoming suspicious about the situation, he and the other co-villagers of him asked the present appellant as to how the said incident occurred on which he disclosed that at the time of return through the dam, an altercation started between present appellant and his wife (Budi) and at that time the present appellant committed murder of his wife by throttling and, thereafter, reported a false incident to his father-in-law after reaching his in-laws’ home.

7. On the basis of such oral intimation which was reduced into writing, Jangipara P.S. Case No. 32 d