The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of weighing circumstantial evidence with great care, the requirement for corroboration, and the importance of establishing a nexus between the accused and the crime. The judgment also emphasized the significance of motive in criminal prosecution and highlighted the need to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

D. Biswas, J.- On conclusion of trial in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1997, the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon convicted the appellant-Abdul Kasem under section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default, to undergo RI for a further period of one month. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal on various grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal.

2. Before we deal with the factual aspect of the matter in the light of the submission made by Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant, we would like to clear the facts which culminated in the conviction of the appellant

3. An FIR was lodged by Md Ismail Hussain on 8.12.94 at 9 PM before the Officer In-charge of Bhuragaon Police Outpost alleging that on the previous night someone hacked Md Sohrab Ali to death with weapons and his body was thrown into the wheat cultivation field of Abdul Bank of Falihamari farm. It is stated in the FIR that the deceased was a distant nephew of the informant.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-charge of the Police Out Post forwarded the same to the Lahorighat Police Station for registration of a case and accordingly PS Case No. 135 of 1994 under section 302 IPC was registered. The police took up investigation, forwarded the dead body for post mortem c examination, examined a number of witnesses and, eventually, on conclusion thereof submitted charge sheet against the appellant Abdul Kasem and Mohammed Ali under section 302/34 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused Abdul Kasem and Mohammed Ali under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge examined nine witnesses produced by the prosecution and one witness for the defence. On conclusion of trial, the learned Judge awarded the verdict of guilt against the appellant Abdul Kasem and sentenced him as aforesaid.

5. Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon certain circumstances which, in his opinion, do not complete a chain to warrant conviction of the appellant According to him the teamed Sessions Judge committed grave error in convicting the appellant only on surmises and probabilities and, as such his conviction cannot be sustained in law.

6. There is no doubt that there is no eye witness to the occurrence in the instant case. The dead body of the deceased was found hi the wheat cultivation of Abdul Bank. The conviction has been recorded on the basis of blood marks traced from the place where the dead body was lying to the house of the appellant and recovery of blood stained quilt from the house of the appellant.

7. PW 7 is Dr. Rajendra Prasad Borah who had performed the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Sohrab Ali. This witness tendered in evidence the autopsy report marked Ext 2 which shows that the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased :

“1. Lacerated injury in the scalp, two are situated on the right frontal area measuring 2" and 1" in length and two are situated on the left frontal area measuring 2" and 1" in length. Fractures seen in four sides.

2. Membrane are torn.

3. Blood present inside the brain.”

8. The doctor has not been cross examined. In fact, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that Sohrab Ali was murdered by unknown culprits.

9. PW1, Abdul Motleb deposed nothing worthy of notice. After hearing the news of death of Sohrab Ali, he went to the wheat cultivation and saw the dead body of Sohrab Ali. Similar is the position with regard to the evidence of PW 3, Abdul Razak. He along with his brother PW 4, Abdul Barek went to see their nephew Sohrab Ali who was lying dead in the wheat cultivation. They saw the injuries on his head. This witness reported the incident verbally to the Police Out Post. PW 4, Abdul Barek reiterated what

Click Here to Read the rest of this document