The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence and medical evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.

A. Hazarica, J.

1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.99 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Hailakandi in session case No. 19/99.

2. This is a case of death of an unfortunate young housewife, Smti. Sukhaprabha Das, who died within 3 months from the date of her marriage. The FIR, Ext. 1 was filed by Sri Jogendra Chandra Das, father of Sukhoprahba on 24.07.96, stating inter alia, therein that in the month of "Falgun" (Feb/March) in 1403 B.S., he gave marriage of his daughter to Shri Bishu Das. Around 10 AM on 17.07.96, the mother-in-law of his daughter came to his house and informed that his daughter had been missing since 7/8 AM, that day. She further stated that his daughter might run-away with some boy. On receipt of the news, his wife and eldest daughter went to his daughter's house. After a little while he alongwith four relatives went to his daughter's house. There he came to know that his daughter had died as a result of burn injuries. Along with their family member, he alongwith his relatives went to the jungle near by their house and saw his daughter lying supine, with her head to the south, in a "Muli" (a species of bamboo), bamboo grove which was in the north side of their house. The tongue of the deceased was found between the teeth. The deceased was bleeding from the nose. There were burns from knees to head. A plastic can of kerosene was there on the chest of the deceased. The can was not burnt. The father suspected that Bishu Das i.e. his son in law, Piyush Das and Dilip Das, brOrs. of Bishu Das had killed his daughter, taken her to the pouring kerosene oil.

3. On the basis of the said FIR, Ext. 1, police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet. The accused was tried for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Haliakandi by impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused Appellant to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer R 1 for two years more. Hence, the present appeal.

4. The present case, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case rest on the circumstantial evidence, whereas, the case of the Appellant is that his wife committed suicide. He did not kill her. He had lodged ejahar prior to the ejahar lodged by Ors. . After receipt of his ejahar, police went to the place of occurrence and took away the body of his wife.

5. During trial prosecution examined five witnesses including the doctor and Investigating Officer. The defence did not adduce any evidence. The defence case as emerges from, the answers given during the course of examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is of complete denial.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused/Appellant primarily on the basis of medical evidence only which is not justified in view of evidence on record adduced by the prosecution witnesses.

Learned P.P. on the other hand supported the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

7. In view of the above submission we may have a look at the evidence of Dr. Santosh Bhattacharjee, P.W. 5, who held the autopsy on the dead body and found as follows:

1. An irregular ligature mark about 2cm in breadth around the neck above the Cricothyroid and knot is behind and posteriorly to the right ear. On dissection the tissue beneath the skin is of parchment appearance. No dislocation vertebral column found.

2. The whole body was burnt superficially anteriorly and also back side upto the middle third of both the legs. Injury No. 1 is ante-mortem and injury No. 2 is post mortem in nature.

8. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to asphyxia resulting from hanging homicidal in nature.

In cross examination he stated that swelling of dead body varies from the causes of the death and in hot and moisture weather it starts about 8/10 hours of the death. Ext. 6 is the post Mortem Report and 6 (1) is the si