Paran Kumar Phukan, J. - The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara dated 30.08.2014, passed in Sessions Case No. 299/2013 convicting the accused appellant u/s 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default R.I. for 6 (six) months is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that on 18.07.2013 the informant Umesh Kachari and his younger brother Barneswar visited the house of the accused appellant at village Chaksan under Rangjuli police station in connection with illness of the accused appellant who is their brother-in-law (husband of their sister). After taking mid-day-meal while they were chewing betel nut and gossiping in the veranda of the house with the elder brother of the accused appellant, suddenly they heard some noise coming from inside the room and when they tried to enter into that room the accused appellant came out armed with a dagger and started chasing them, out of fear they ran out of the house towards road but the accused appellant suddenly changed his mind and came back towards his room. After some time they came back to the house where other people also assembled and saw the dead body of their sister lying on the floor with stab injury on her chest, accused was also lying there in an injured condition. Police also arrived and the dagger was seized from the place of occurrence. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the accused appellant who sustained injuries was sent to hospital in an Ambulance.

3. The written FIR, Exbt.-1 was lodged on 18.07.2013, i.e., on the date of the occurrence itself by Umesh Kachari. Police registered the FIR and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant u/s 302 of the IPC.

4. The case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara on committal. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses during the trial including the formal witnesses. The defence plea is of total denial.

5. On completion of trial, learned Sessions Judge found the accused appellant guilty u/s 302 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him accordingly as stated above.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal from jail.

7. Heard Mr. R.K. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused appellant and also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State of Assam.

8. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution saw the accused appellant stabbing his wife and also stabbing himself and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled proposition that for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons who had seen its commission. The case can be proved by drawing inferences from the surrounding circumstances of the case. The circumstantial evidence is that direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together form a chain of circumstances from which existence of the principal fact or factum probendum can be legally inferred. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence the inferences of guilt can be justified only when only incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any person.

9. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1990 SC 79, the Apex Court laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:-

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circ