This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 134/2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2000.00 in default suffer simple imprisonment for another period of 2 (two) months for his conviction under section 302 IPC.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this Appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. A. M. Bujorbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 17.10.1998, the appellant, with a promise to marry, took with him Musstt. Noorjahan Khatoon (hereinafter called the deceased) and entered into a marriage. But due to torture and ill treatment meted out to her, by the members of the family of the appellant, she returned to the house of the informant, who is her maternal uncle. On 21.10.1998, at about 8 p.m., while she was sleeping, the appellant, by calling again took her away. Subsequently, her dead body found hanging from a tree. The prosecution version is that she was killed, by strangulation, by the appellant along with other accused persons (since acquitted).

4. Initially, on 22.10.1998 Police received FIR (Ext.-5) from Md. Fatik Bhuyan (PW-3) and after registering a U.D. case investi#31;gated into the matter. Subsequently, PW-1 lodged an FIR (Ext.-l), on 25.10.1998, alleging murder of the deceased. On receipt of this FIR, Police registered a case U/S 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter.

5. During the investigation, Police visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of the witnesses, held inquest of the dead body, forwarded the dead body for autopsy and prepared sketch map.

At the close of the investigation, Police submitted Charge-sheet U/S 302 IPC against the appellant and 7 (seven) others.

6. The case being committed, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge U/s 302/34 I.P.C. against the appellant and others. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove their case, prosecution examination, as many as, 9 (nine) witnesses as PWs, including the Medical Officer (PW-8), who performed autopsy and the investigating Police officers (PWs 8 & 9). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, brought against them and declined of adduced defence evidence.

8. Mr. A. M. Bujorbaruah, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case, beyond all reasonable doubt, by adducing substantiate evidence in support of the case. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was found in the company of the appellant, immediately before her death and as much the learned trial Judge committed error, by applying the "last seen theory" in this case. The learned counsel has also contended that in the event ofhomicidal killing there would have existed some marks of injury on the dead body and that absence of any sign of struggle or injury marks, as indicated by the medical evidence, negates the theory ofhomicidal death. Therefore, it is submitted, that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted for want of sufficient evidence.

9. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned defence Counsel, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, has submitted that there is sufficient substantive evidence against the appellant and that the dead body of the deceased was recovered, after she was called by the appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that, none other than, the appellant had