Circumstantial evidence must firmly establish guilt, and the defense of epilepsy under Section 84, IPC requires clear and cogent evidence.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This Criminal Reference, arises out of the judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No. 02/2001 (Corresponding to Roing PS Case No. 38/2000) convicting the accused under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, referred for confirmation under Section 30 of Regulation 1 of 1945--The Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley district, Roing.

2. We have heard Mr. N. Lowang, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. T. Pertin, learned Amicus Curiae, appointed to defend the accused.

3. The prosecution case initiated on the basis of an FIR lodged with the Officer in Charge, Roing Police Station, by one Shri Tengare Linggi, to the effect that on 14.6.2000 at about 3.00 A.M., the accused Shri Naina Bahadur Chetri murdered his wife. On receipt of the said FIR, the Roing Police Station Case No. 38/2000 under Section 302, IPC, was registered and Shri M.K. Deuri, SI, PW-9, was entrusted to investigate the case. The process of investigation having been set into motion, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and drew a sketch map of the place of occurrence (Ext-3), conducted inquest upon the dead body and forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of as many as eight witnesses whereas the statements of PW-3, Shri Purna Bahadur Chetri and PW-5, Miss Lila Devi Sivakot were recorded under Section 164(5), Code of Criminal Procedure. After conclusion of the investigation, the investigating Officer having found prima facie material against the accused for prosecuting him under Section 302, IPC, prepared the charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 56/2000 under Section 302, IPC and forwarded the same for necessary action to the learned trial Court. The case being a Sessions triable one, the same was committed to the Court of the learned Deputy Commissioner for necessary trial. The learned Deputy Commissioner registering the case being Sessions Trial No. 2/2001, on the basis of the materials made available before him by the investigating agency and on hearing both prosecution and the defence framed charge against the accused person under Section 302, IPC to which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the Doctor, the Investigating Officer, exhibited eight documents and three photos whereas the defence examined none. After closer of the prosecution case, the accused was examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, putting upon him the circumstances that appeared against him during the course of trial in relation to the charge to which the accused denied. The defence not having examined any witness in support of its case, the learned trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties and upon meticulous consideration of the evidence and materials on record and having found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, vide judgment and order dated 8.7.2003 convicted him under Section 302, IPC, for murdering his wife and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life subject to the confirmation by this Court.

5. Both the learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh as well as the learned Amicus Curiae led us through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in support of their respective cases. Mr. N. Lowang, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, in support of the prosecution case submits, inter alia, that the evidence of the prosecution case unerringly goes to point the guilt towards the accused and the learned trial Court upon proper assessment of the evidence available on record rightly found the accused guilty and accordingly, he has been convicted under proper section of law, which requires no interference and the said judgmen