Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and consistent chain of circumstances that is inconsistent with the accused's innocence.

The judgment and order under challenge was passed, on 12.01.98, by the learned Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur, in Sessions Case No. 18 (NL) of 1995, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. In a nut-shell, prosecution's case as unfolded at the trial, runs as follows:-

One Sri Akon Bora of village Rajkhowa gaon lodged a written FIR, on 25.09.94 at 7 AM, at Panigaon police out post, which falls under North Lakhimpur police station, stating to the effect that on the previous day at about 12 O' clock at night, while his elder brother, Nabin Chutia, was keeping watch on 'his 'Muga' plantation at his farm house, he was killed by some miscreants by giving blows with 'dao' and that at the time of occurrence, Nabin Chutia's ploughman too was sleeping in Nabin Chutia's company. Based on this FIR, police registered a case, started investigation and arrested the accused-appellant, namely, Kamal Bora. During his interrogation, the accused allegedly made a statement before the investigating officer that the 'dao' used by him in the commission of the offence had been kept concealed and he would be able to recover the 'dao'. The accused-appellant allegedly led the investigating officer to a place near the said farm house and brought out, in the presence of witnesses, a 'dao', which had been kept concealed under the bushes at the said place. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC.

3. When the charge framed under Section 302 IPC was read over to the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the investigating officer. The accused-appellant was, then, examined, under Section 313 Cr.PC. and in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being, briefly stated, thus: No 'dao' was recovered at the instance of the accused. On the night of the occurrence, the accused witnessed a video show and on his return from the video show to the farm house, he saw Nabin Chutia lying dead there and, on witnessing the same, the appellant, out of fear, ran away to Nabin Chutia's house raising hue and cry, but later on, police arrested him and falsely implicated him in the case as the perpetrator of the crime. The trial concluded in the conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence, as hereinbefore mentioned, was passed against him. Hence, this appeal.

4. We have perused the relevant records. We have heard Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. P. Bora, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

5. It may be noted, at the very outset, that according to PW-6 (Dr. AS Talukdar), he performed postmortem examination on the dead body of Nabin Chutia and Ext. 5 is the post mortem report. This report discloses that PW-6 found following injuries on the said dead body:-

“1. One sharp cutting wounds on the left side of the cheek from chin to the angle of the mandible size 3”xl” bone deep.

2. One sharp cutting in the left side of the neck anterelaternally from skin to deep into the cervical vertebra involving the muscles of the neck, all great and small muscles completely cut of trachea and the 3rd cervical vertebra at the site of injury partially cutting of aesophagues size being 3"x2"x cervical vertebra”.

6. In the opinion of PW-6, the death was caused due to asphyxia and shock as a result of the haemorrhage from the injuries sustained.

7. From a careful examination of the medical evidence on record, it clearly transpires that the injuries, which, in the opinion of the doctor had led to the death of Nabin Chutia, were caused by some heavy sharp-cutting weapon, such as, 'dao'. In fact, it is not disputed before us that the injuries aforementioned coul