The main legal point established is that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and the prosecution must adhere to the requirements of section 27 of the Evidence Act for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact.

1. The impugned conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 143 (DM)/04 convicting the appellant under section 302 and sentencing him to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. We have heard Ms. B. Devi, learned amicus curiae appointed for the accused/appellant and Mr. P.C. Gayan, learned PP, Assam.

3. The criminal proceeding was set into motion against the appellant on lodging an FIR (Ex-3) by one Amizuddin Mandal on 20.3.2003 alleging that around 3.30 P.M. the accused Md. Nur Islam alias Keru resident of Gelaidingi confined his wife Miss Isiran Nessa in his house by closing the doors and killed her by hacking with dao and fled away.

4. On the basis of said information lodged with the O.C., Mangaldoi Police Station, a case was registered as Mangaldoi Police Station Case No. 91/03 under section 302, IPC against the accused appellant. The 1.0. investigated the case and during the course of investigation, I.O. visited the place of occurrence, caused autopsy of the dead body, recorded the statements of different witnesses and after collection of the postmortem report, having found prima facie case, charge sheet was submitted against the accused in the court of learned C.J.M., Mangaldoi . The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang Mangaldoi for necessary trial. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the documents and papers submitted by the investigating agency under section 173, Cr.PC and having both the prosecution and defence framed charges against the accused/appellant under section 302, IPC, and on being explained the charge, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. Accordingly, in order to bring home the charges so framed against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including Doctor who conducted the autopsy. At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the materials which were unfolded by the prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of commission of offence under section 302 on account of killing his wife and sentenced him in the manner aforesaid.

6. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused/ appellant, the appellant has forwarded an informal appeal from Jail on the basis of which this appeal has been registered and Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court. During the course of hearing learned amicus curiae has forcefully submitted that on conjoint reading of the statement of the witnesses rendered by the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be safely held that the prosecution could prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned amicus curiae further pointed out that there having no eye witnesses to the occurrence, the prosecution, in order to prove the charge is to rely only on the circumstantial evidence which they miserably failed to do and accordingly the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused cannot be sustained. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that the alleged discovery of Dao, the offending weapon, at the instance of the accused, in the proved facts of the case cannot be said the circumstances leading to discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

7. Per contra, the learned PP referring the FIR, Exbt-1 and statements of P.W.8 submits that the prosecution could prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and at the instance of the accused the offending weapon having been recovered from him, such recovery is very strong circumstances against him. That apart, from the evidence of the witnesses, although there is no eye witness in this case, it can safely be held that it is none but the accused who committed the