The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for solid proof beyond reasonable doubt when relying on circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial. The judgment emphasizes the need to establish circumstances conclusively and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

M.A. Ali, J.

We have heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae for the appellant in Crl. A. 35/2016 and Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned amicus curiae for the appellant in Crl. A. 36/2016 and Mr. M. Phukan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State, who have also taken us through the evidence and materials available on record.

2. Both the appeals having arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 54/2014 are taken together for hearing and disposal.

3. Both the appellants were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

4. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Bai Orang was the first wife of the appellant Bobo Kisko and the appellant Proja Kisko @ Sunia Boraik is the second wife of the appellant Bobo Kisko. On 13.01.2013 at about 7 O’clock in the evening, both the appellants killed the victim by strangulation. Budhua Orang (PW-1) lodged the FIR (Ext.4), on the basis of whch Tingkhong P.S. Case No. 16/2013 was registered. During investigation, S.I. Mohan Sena Sinha prepared the inquest report (Ext.1) and Dr. Subhajyoti Deka (PW-7) conducted autopsy on the body of the victim.

5. PW-7, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased found the following injuries :

“1. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the back of the left elbow;

2. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm and 1 cm x .8 cm, .7 cm apart present on the back of the right shoulder;

3. One crecentic nail mark with concavity downward present on the right cheek 1.2 cm x .3 cm.

On examination of the neck: One continuous horizontal ligature mark 36 cm x .5 cm present on the neck which is completely encircling the neck and at the level of thyroid cartilage. The ligature mark process behind the neck with a contusion on the back of the neck 4 cm x 3 cm, congestion and petechial hemorrhage present on the margin of the neck. The ligature mark is dark, hard and brownish in colour. On dissection, tissues underlined the ligature mark found contused.”

6. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was asphyxia resulting from antemortem strangulation by ligature and homicidal in nature. Approximate time since death 12-24 hours.

7. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against both the appellants under Section 302 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses to bring home the charge and on appreciation of the evidence and materials brought on record, learned trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

8. The materials on record and the impugned judgment transpire that there was no eye witness and the learned trial court recorded the conviction and sentence of the appellants essentially relying on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, which were relied by the learned trial court has been enumerated in paragraph-16 of the impugned judgment as under :

“16. The circumstance proved against the accused may be summarized as follows :

(i) The deceased and the accused persons were the only people present in the house of the accused at the relevant time;

(ii) The deceased died of strangulation by ligature inside the house of the accused;

(iii) A plastic rope was recovered from the house of the accused by the Investigating Officer;

(iv) The motive is also established;

(v) The accused persons made false statements regarding the cause of death of the deceased in their defence statements, which itself is a link in the chain of circumstances.”

9. It is the settled principle that in order to prove a charge in a criminal trial by circumstantial evidence, prosecution needs to prove each and every circumstance solidly beyond all reasonable doubt and the circumstances must be in such a chain, which unerringly leads to the conclusion, consistent only with the hypothesis of t