Ajit Singh, J.

Appellant Shyamal Das has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The victim of incident was Sunarton, aged about 27 years.

3. According to the prosecution case, appellant and Sunarton were good friends and lived in the same locality at Kathal Road falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Silchar, Cachar. They were also rickshaw pullers by profession and after day’s work, they usually used to spend time together along with two co-accused persons - Satish and Sundar, who were also rickshaw pullers and lived nearby. On the night of 9.8.2007, around 10 p.m., appellant, Satish and Sundar, as usual, went to the house of Sunarton and called him. Sunarton then left with them to spend time and did not return during the night. His father Monoranjan Roy (PW-1) naturally got worried and searched for Sunarton, but could not find him. On the following morning, Monoranjan was informed by some boys that injured body of Sunarton was lying in a field near Kathal Road. Monoranjan, in turn, informed his brothers - Satya Ranjan Roy (PW-2) and Subhodhar Roy (PW-4) whereafter, all of them rushed to the place of occurrence. There they found Sunarton lying dead with multiple injuries. Satya Ranjan telephonically informed the police of Rangirkhari Police Out-Post. At that time, Subrata Purkayastha (PW-6) was In-charge of Police Out-Post. On receiving the information, he went to the place of occurrence with his staff and prepared inquest report exhibit 1 of the dead body. He also seized certain articles vide seizure list exhibit 3 and sent the dead body for post mortem examination.

4. Dr. BC Roy Medhi (PW-5) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunarton. He found as many as five stab wounds on different parts of the body and also one cut injury on the neck. The doctor, in his post mortem examination report exhibit 4, opined that Sunarton died due to stab injuries, which were ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon. After the post mortem examination was conducted, Monoranjan (father) made ejahar exhibit 2 on 11.8.2007 at Police Outpost Rangirkhari, which was later registered as First Information Report. In the ejahar, he mentioned the names of appellant, Satish and Sundar as the possible assailants of Sunarton.

5. The appellant surrendered before Police on 10.3.2008. Likewise, Satish and Sundar also surrendered. But, during the trial, after framing of charge, Sundar and Satish absconded. In the result, the trial of appellant was separated and relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid. The appellant, in his defence, had pleaded false implication.

6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court, in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence, committed an illegality in convicting the appellant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, defended the impugned conviction and sentence of appellant.

7. As there is no direct evidence, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court relied upon the following circumstances in convicting the appellant:-

(i) On the date of occurrence, at about 11 p.m., the appellant along with Satish and Sundar came to the house of the Sunarton and called him whereafter Sunarton went out with them;

(ii) On the date of occurrence, at about 11 p.m., Arjun Suklabaidya met the appellant, Satish and Sundar in the company of Sunarton;

(iii) On the date of occurrence, during day time also, the appellant, Satish and Sundar visited the house of Sunarton twice in search of him, but he was not found;

(iv) The dead body of Sunarton was found in a paddy field with multiple injuries;

(v) That the appellant absconded soon after the death of Sunarton;

(vi) That the appellant did not give any explanation of being ‘last seen tog