IMPORTANT POINT
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in criminal trials, and the evaluation of incriminating facts and circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the Judgement of conviction dated December 21, 2019 and the order of sentence dated December 23, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Durgapur, in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 251 of 2013.

2. The case of the prosecution at the trial had been that, Nafisa Khatun was coming from school along with her daughter when, the appellant, suddenly attacked her, randomly stabbed her with a sharp weapon on the Najirabad Main Road in front of the house of Ajij Miya. Police had received a written complaint with regard to the murder from Prosecution Witness (PW) 1 on September 4, 2013 which was registered as a First Information Report being Andal Police Station F.I.R No. 347 dated September 4, 2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Police conducted an investigation with regard to the such written complaint and on conclusion of the investigation, police had submitted a charge sheet against the appellant. The Court had framed a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant on December 11, 2013. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and claime to be tried.

4. At the trial, prosecution had examined 20 witnesses and relied upon various documentary and material evidences. On conclusion of the evidences of the prosecution, the appellant had been examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code where, he claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated.

5. By the impugned Judgement of conviction dated December 21, 2019, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Trial Judge has awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default to suffer imprisonment for one more year.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the prosecution did not examine any eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove the charge. According to him, the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances so as to point to the guilt of the appellant unquestionably.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, no reliance should be placed on the inquest report as the same was initiated and conducted after the registration of the First Information Report. He has contended that, the Unnatural Death case No. 62 of 2013 had been registered after the registration of the First Information Report. He has submitted that, the First Information Report was registered at 12:35 hours on September 4, 2013 while the unnatural death was registered at 12:35 hours and the enquiry commenced at 13:15 hours and closed at 14:05 hours. The Magisterial enquiry had been conducted between 13:25 to 16:30 hours.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the prosecution withheld best evidence of the circumstances without any explanation. The minor daughter of the deceased who was accompanying the deceased has not been examined. Two maternal uncles of the deceased who were present during the Magisterial enquiry had not been examined. The owner of the house in front of whom, the incident had occurred was not examined. A local resident from whom most of the witnesses and other relatives came to know about the incident was not examined during trial although examined during investigation. Nobody from the locality had been examined excepting PW 5 who had turned hostile.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, PWs 1, 2 and 4 are hearsay witnesses. Therefore, withholding of the best evidences assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The incident had occurred at 10 A.M in the morning in a locality. Therefore, absence of eye witnesses is something which the Court should take adversely as against the prosecution. He has reli