The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, the need for a conclusive chain of events to implicate the accused, and the impact of material inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence on establishing guilt.

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Addl. P.P. Assam.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 09.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. 05/2009 convicting the accused/appellant U/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence U/s 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Both sentences are with a default clause and are to run concurrently. For convenience, the convicted accused will be referred as the appellant hereafter.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Shri Sambhu Barman, father of the deceased (PW-1) lodged an FIR before the Officer in Charge of Garufela Police Outpost on 18.09.2007 stating that on 16.09.2007 (Sunday) at about 4 p.m. his third son Shri Gautam Barman (the deceased) aged about 16 years went to the residence of the appellant to collect money for PACL company. Thereafter his son called up one of his neighbour’s son Shri Kirshna Sutradhar (PW-3) at around 5 p.m. informing him that he was in danger and asked him to inform his mother that he will be late by half an hour. When Shri Krishna Sutradhar called him back after half an hour, his phone was switched off. Thereafter, he with his elder son and two other persons went to the house of the appellant only to be informed that his son had returned home at around 6 p.m. Alleging that his son was brutally killed near No. 2 Hatigarh river, he lodged the FIR naming as many as 13 persons including the appellant. He also mentioned that his son had opened his Paan shop on the day when bandh was called by AKRASU unaware about the bandh and therefore, his son was killed due to some conspiracy made by the persons named in the FIR.

4. The FIR was received by the Garufela Police Outpost and GD entry No. 275 dated 18.09.2007 was made whereafter, it was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Kachugaon Police Station for registering a case. Consequently, Kachugaon P.S. Case No. 37/2007 U/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 and 120 (B) of the IPC was registered and the case investigated into.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant only. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar whereafter, charge was framed U/s 302 and 201 IPC against the appellant. Against the charge, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution during the trial examined as many as 11 (eleven) prosecution witnesses including the Medical Officer and the two Investigation Officers (I.O.). The appellant was examined U/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and confronted with the evidence led by the prosecution. However, the response of the appellant to the questions put up to him was only that of denial and lack of knowledge. The appellant also refused to lead any evidence in his defence.

7. To conclude the trial, the learned trial Court heard the arguments of the rival parties and thereafter, passed its Judgment on 09.05.2013 convicting and sentencing the appellant U/s 302 and 201 IPC as aforementioned.

8. Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there were no eye witnesses to the alleged crime and the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He submits that in order to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there has to be a chain of events clearly revealing the role of the accused to the commission of the alleged crime so that an inevitable conclusion can be arrived at and the guilt of the accused established. However, in the instant case, from the evidence led by the prosecution,