The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC for murder.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 14.12.98, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sibsagar, in Sessions Case No. 66(s-s)/96, convicting the accused - appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated thus: On 10.9.93 at about 7.30 PM, the accused appellant, who was a co-labourer and neighbour of deceased Maniram Munda, having found fencing of his house broken, came in front of the house of the deceased and, upon being called by him, the deceased went out of his house to have a look at the place of the broken fencing. The accused, then assaulted the deceased by a dao. On hearing the cries of the deceased saying, “lam being cut”, his wife, Smti Phulmati Murah, came out with a lighted lamp in her hands and saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling and scuffling with each other and when she reached the place of occurrence, she found a dao lying at the place of occurrence. Phaulmoti picked up the dao and threw the same away. In the meanwhile, Smti. Renu wife of the accused, came and when she (Renu) uttered, “Father of Anil, what are you doing there ? Go away”, the accused fled away. The deceased was shifted in injured condition to the garden hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. Deceased. Maniram's wife, Phulmati, lodged a written FIR (Ext. 1) at Demow Police Station and a case against the accused was accordingly registered. During the investigation, police held inquest over the dead-body and also seized the said dao on the same being produced by Phulmati. On completion of the investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 302IPC.

3. In all, prosecution examined 5 witnesses. The accused was, then, examined u/s 313 Cr. PC. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total. denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, on finding the accused guilty of the charge framed under Section 302 IPC, convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as hereinabove mentioned

4. We have heard Mr. J. Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. G Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

5. In this case, the fact that Maniram, met with homicidal death is not really in dispute. This apart. Dr. S. Das (PW 4), who had performed postmortem examination on the said dead body, deposed to have found as follows:

“ 1. One incised wound, ½ x 1" in size located over the left chest wall, 2" medially to the anterior axillary line excising muscles and cutting 4th, 5th and 6th ribs at costondral junctions perforating the pericardium and left border of the heart.

2. A lacerated wound of the size 4"*2" with smooth margins 5" below the left shoulder joint exposing the muscles and bone.

Both the lungs congested. Pericardium contains about one litre of blood. Heart is perforated by wound No. 1 as described above. All other organs healthy.”

6. The wounds aforementioned were, according to the doctor (PW 4), ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and the same were caused by heavy sharp-cutting weapon. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 4), the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by the de-ceased, the wound No. 1 being, in itself, sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature.

7. Besides the medical evidence o n record, we also have the evidence of Smt. Phulmati (PW1) wife of the deceased, and Mukha Munda (PW 3), a neighbour of the deceased. Both of them have deposed to the effect that Maniram was injured and died. In the face of the oral and medical evidence on record, as indicated hereinbefore, we