JUDGMENT :

Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 10.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, in Sessions Case No. 170/2014, convicting the accused-appellant and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.

2. The fact of the prosecution case is that, on 04.08.2011, the deceased Nur Islam, son of the informant Abdul Mannan (PW 1) went missing. At about 8:00 pm on that day, deceased Nur Islam was called and taken out of his house by accused Jiarul in conspiracy with other co-accused named in the FIR. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased Nur Islam was recovered on 01.09.2011 from a jungle at Kadamtala. On 02.09.2011, the informant lodged the FIR in respect of the occurrence.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Bilasipara Police Station registered a case, being Bilasipara PS Case No. 549/2011 under Sections 302/201 IPC and investigated into it. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused persons 1) Rashid Ali, 2) Abdul Haque, 3) Jiarul Haque, 4) Sattar Ali, 5) Nousad Ali, 6) Jamel Sheikh, 7) Gafur Ali and 8) Abdul Baten under Sections 120(B)/341/149/302/201 IPC showing therein Gafur Ali and Abdul Baten as absconders.

4. The learned trial court framed a formal charge against Rashid Ali, Abdul Haque, Jiarul Haque, Sattar Ali, Nousad Ali, Gafur Ali and Abdul Baten under Sections 120(B)/341/149/302/201 IPC. The accused persons pleaded innocence while the charges were read over and explained to them. Therefore, the trial commenced.

5. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses including the medical officers and the investigating officer.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant and the co-accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. They have denied the allegations leveled against them and also declined to adduce defence evidence. After conclusion of trial, vide the impugned judgment, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as indicated above, and acquitted the remaining accused.

7. We have perused the record of the trial court including the impugned judgment. We have also heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Mr. A. Ahmed and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. Phukan for the state respondent No. 1.

8. The PW 1 is the informant, Abdul Mannan. According to his evidence, he resides at a village called Kajaikata and his son resides at village Suryakhata and during the period of occurrence he did not know the whereabouts of his son, and therefore, one day, he came to his son's house and enquired from his wife about the whereabouts of his son/deceased to which his daughter-in-law i.e. the wife of the deceased, informed him that his son had left for some works and would come back before the Eid festival. After few days, this witness got the information that a human skeleton was found at Kadamtala Bagan. At the police station he was shown the skeleton and the same was identified by him to be of his son's dead body on the basis of the clothes his deceased son was wearing i.e. a vest and a long pant. He has further deposed that he was told by the wife of the deceased that accused Jiarul had come to their place one day and took away her husband at about 8:00 pm and accused Jiarul assuring her that her husband would come back before the Eid festival. He has also stated in his evidence that there was a land dispute between the accused persons and himself. He has exhibited the FIR as Ext. 1. In his cross examination, he has categorically stated that his daughter