The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proving the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the importance of circumstantial evidence in establishing the circumstances of a case.

In Sessions Case No. 38(B)/1994 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Barpeta, accused Abul Hasem and Mokshed Ali were charged for commission of offence u/s. 302/201/34, IPC. On conclusion of trial in which as many as nine witnesses were examined, the trial court acquitted accused Mokshed Ali and convicted accused appellant Abul Hasem for the offence u/s. 302/201, IPC and sentenced him accordingly.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that Mustt. Majirun Nessa, daughter of the informant was given in marriage to accused appellant Abul Hasem @ Hasen Ali. However, the family members of Hasem Ali did not accept the marriage and as such the couple was not allowed to reside in their house whereupon Hasem Ali brought her to his rented house at Barpeta. The wife Majirun Nessa become untraceable, whereupon after futile search, the father lodged the FIR suspecting foul play. During the course of investigation, the dead body was recovered and thereafter the charge sheet was submitted.

3. PW 1 is Dr. Golap Hussain who held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries :-

"External appearance :-

The body was decomposed. No injury could be detected from any part of the body. The dead body could be identified as female dead body with the following points.

External injuries :-

(i) Long hair

(ii) Sign of developed breast present

(iii) There was red coloured sari on the dead body

(iv) Body structure and bones were of female character.

Abdomen, lung and heart were decomposed. However skull and vertebrae were intact.

As the entire body was decomposed no injury or dislocation could be detected. Left hand from the elbow was separated from the upper arm.

No opinion could be given as regards the cause of death. The viscera was not preserved and the same was also damaged.

Ext. 1 is the Post Mortem report and Ext. 1(1) is my signature thereon.

Earth and mud was found strucked on the dead body and from this fact it can be presumed that the body was kept buried underground. Considering the nature of decomposition the death must have taken place more than one month prior to the examination. The dead body was identified by one Sayed Ali, uncle of the deceased."

4. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to submit that in view of decomposition of the dead body as stated by the doctor there was no scope for identification of the dead body as claimed by the witnesses, a large number of witnesses have deposed that at the time of recovery of the dead body one could identify it to be that of Majirun Nessa and the defence failed to cross examine the witnesses even. Hence, in view of the unchallenged testimony of the witnesses, the trial court rightly held that the dead body recovered was that of the deceased Majirun Nessa.

5. In this case, there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence, that is, none of the witnesses saw the deceased being killed. The trial court also entered into an order of conviction of the appellant on the, basis of the following circumstances :-

"(1) That the accused Abul Hasen got married with Majirun Nessa.

(2) That Abul Hasen after marriage took Majirun Nessa to Barpeta town to live together.

(3) That during that time, suddenly Majirun was missing.

(4) That while the father of Majirun came to meet Majirun the accused protested and did not allow.

(5) That on being arrested, the accused . disclosed the fact.

(6) That the accused himself led to recover the dead body of Majirun."

6. So far the circumstance Nos. 1 to 4 as stated above are concerned, there is evidence on record and the prosecution has established those circumstances as required under the law. However, the order of conviction is based mainly on the ground of discovery of the dead body on the basis of the information given by the accused appellant Abul Hasen. In this connection Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads:-

"27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovere