P. K. Saikia, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 38/2008 convicting the appellant, namely, Sri Nidhu Sukla Baidya of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) i.d. R.I. for 2 (two) months for offence u/s 302/201 IPC and R.I. for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) i.d., R.I. for another 1 (one) month for the offence aforesaid.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused person’) has preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge.

3. We have heard Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., for the State.

4. The case, projected by the prosecution in the FIR and in subsequent trial, in brief, is that on 19.01.2007, five year old daughter of Bipul Suklya Biadya (PW 1) who was the informant in the case aforesaid had gone missing. Accordingly, on 20.01.2007, O/C, at Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station (in short PS) was informed who made a missing entry on the basis of such information. It was suspected that the accused, who happened to be the son of the informant, had killed the girl aforesaid.

5. Subsequently, on 24.01.2007, a formal FIR was lodged on receipt of such FIR, police registered a case vide Ramkrishna Nagar PS Case No. 9/2007 and O/C, himself took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and was interrogated. He confessed to have killed the victim and confessed that he had buried her body in a nearby hillock. Thereafter, the accused led the police to the place where the victim was buried stealthily.

6. On the discovery of the dead body, an inquest was done on the same thorough an Executive Magistrate, thereafter, the dead body was sent to hospital for post mortem examination and examined the witnesses, did other thing needful and on the conclusion of investigation, the I/O submitted charge sheet u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial.

7. The learned Magistrate before whom charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the court of Sessions since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Session. On receipt of the case on commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, was pleased to frame charges u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to him, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses including the informant, the I/O of the case and the M/O who conducted autopsy on the dead body. The statement of the accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded. The accused plea was of total denial. However, on being required the accused declined to adduce any evidence in his defence.

9. On conclusion of trial, learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj was pleased to hold the accused person guilty of offences u/s 302/201 IPC and was also pleased to convict him there-under and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal.

10. Mr. I. A. Hazarika, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits that the case in hand is based entirely on circumstantial evidence but circumstances, proved by the prosecution, hardly connect the accused with the crime in question, much less, such circumstances form a chain of events unbreakable anywhere leading to lone and sole conclusion that the accused, and none else, was the author of the crime in question.

11. It has also been contended that the Doctor could not ascertain the cause of death, a prime requirement in a case of murder. More importantly, the prosecution