Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2008 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default thereof, to suffer another rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The facts giving rise to this appeal, as projected by the prosecution, are that on 25.9.2003, at about 10.35 P.M., the In-Charge Malugram T.O.P. received an information from one Bikash Das, a member of Zila Parishad of Dudhpatil area over telephone that on that day, the appellant had killed his wife with a sharp weapon and thrown the dead body in the midst of the paddy field and prayed for action. On the basis of this information, the In-Charge, Malugram T.O.P. made G.D. Entry 495 dated 25-9-2003 and after consulting with the Officer-in-Charge, Silchar Police Station, proceeded towards Chotodudhpatil, Rangalal Tilla i.e. the place of the occurrence. On 26.9.2003 i.e. the next day, Probhat Deb Nath (PW-3) lodged a formal complaint with the Malugram T.O.P. (Silchar Police Station) stating therein that on 25.9.2003 at around 8.45 P.M. on hearing somebody shrieking, he along with Amulya Deb Nath (PW-1) and others rushed to the place of occurrence and with the focus of a torch light, they found a dead body lying on the paddy field. They also found the appellant (Dilip Nath) standing therein with the dead body armed with a sword like weapon and told them that he had killed his wife and warned them not to go near him otherwise they would face dire consequence. Being afraid, they left the place of occurrence. The appellant then fled away in darkness. On receipt of the said complaint, the In-Charge of Malugram Post Office forwarded the same to the O/C, Silchar, P.S., who accordingly, registered a regular case being Silchar P.S. Case No. 1162/03 under Section 302 IPC.

2. After conducting the investigation of the case such as visiting the place of the occurrence, preparing the sketch map of the place of incident, recording the statement of witnesses, seizure of incriminating materials, conducting inquest over the dead body and conducting post mortem examination of the dead body, the police found a prima facie case against the appellant U/s. 302 IPC and accordingly charge-sheeted him to face the trial. At this stage, it may be noted that the appellant had been absconding from the date of the incident for about 5 years and was arrested only on 20.2.2008. On commitment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cachar framed the charge against him under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the charge against accused-appellant, the prosecution examined seven (7) witnesses including some materials exhibits and documents. The appellant however, did not adduce any defense witness. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating evidences appearing in evidence were put to the accused person for explanation, but he denied of having committed the crime against him. On the contrary, he set up a plea of alibi and stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at Dharmanagar (Tripura) and that for the last seven (7) months prior to the occurrence, he had been residing at rented house of one Ganesh Paul of Smasan Kalibari Ghat and used to work as a Carpenter staying in the said house. Thus, the case of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated by the police. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the legality whereof is now under challenge.

3. Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned Amicus Curiae argued that there are many contradictions and gaping holes in the case