B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17/05/2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 96(JJ)2005 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default RI for 3 (three) months. The prosecution case is that one Dawood Munda and his wife Samari Munda were issueless and accordingly the accused appellant, the son of his brother-in-law was kept in their house as adopted son. On 31.5.2005 when Samari Munda came home at about 11 pm from a rehearsal of a play, she discovered her husband lying in a pool of blood. The accused appellant was found absconding. FIR dated 1.6.2005 was lodged by her, on the basis of which Teok PS case No. 42/2005 was registered under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on the basis of which charge against the accused appellant was framed under Section 302 IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the defence examined none. However, the statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., during which he denied commission of the offence.

2. The impugned judgment of conviction is on the basis of the circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The circumstantial evidence on which the learned trial court has placed reliance is that the accused appellant was in the house of the deceased when the PW-1 i.e. his wife has left for the rehearsal. On her return, she found her husband in a pool of blood but the accused appellant was missing. According to her, she had searched for the accused appellant but could not be found. In her cross examination, she has stated that her husband used to take liquor occasionally and that he was out of his head. PW-2 a neighbour, stated in his deposition that on the fateful night, the PW-1 had gone to his house and narrated the incident. Coming to the house of the PW-1, he found the deceased dead. Thus, he is a reported witness.

3. PW-3 is the daughter of PW-2 who had also gone to see the rehearsal. She in her statement stated that when she had left along with the PW-1 to see the rehearsal, the accused appellant was with the deceased. PW-4 and 5 in their deposition stated as to how the accused appellant used to live with the deceased and his wife. They also stated that at times, altercations took place between the deceased and the appellant. PW-6 is also a reported witness who could come to know about the incident next day morning. PW-7 in his deposition stated that he was informed about the death of the deceased and when he went there, the accused appellant could not be found. This witness was declared hostile. In his cross examination, he has stated that the public (villagers) did not tell him why they had gone in search of the accused appellant. He also stated that the public did not ask the accused appellant about the offence.

4. PW-8 is the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body. He in his depositions stated that no external injury was there in the dead body except in the head. He in his deposition opined that the death was due to shock and Coma as a result of the injury sustained. The injury was as follows:-

No any external injury sign seen in the body except in the head.

Lacerated injury on the right side of scalp with fracture of the upper part of the paretooccipital region of the scull bone exposing brain tissue and blood clot.

The wound started from upper part of the right sided cheek which extends upto the occipital region of the right side of the scalp in the mid line. The injuries described are antemortem.

5. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation.

6. In the statement made by the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., his plea was that he was not there at the place of occurrence and he did not know that the deceased died.

7. It is on the above