JUDGMENT :

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Sessions Case No. 30/2016. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.8.2016, the victim, wife of the informant went out from the house, to attend an interview and she did not return. On the next day, at about 7.30 AM, an youth informed the husband of the victim, that the body of his wife was lying at Kachugaon by the side of the road with multiple injuries. Immediately he arrived at the place of occurrence and found the body of his wife with multiple cut injuries. Police also came and seized the scooter, which was used by the victim. A formal FIR was lodged by PW-1, the husband of the victim, on the basis of which, police registered Golaghat P.S. Case No. 638/2016 under Section 302 IPC and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant.

3. In course of trial, charge under Section 302 IPC has framed against the accused, which was abjured by the appellant. In order of bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses including the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

4. Aggrieved by conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant, has preferred the instant appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the respondents.

6. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, assailing the impugned judgment vehemently submits, that though, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused/appellant solely relying on the two circumstances, viz. enmity and the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there was no evidence on record to connect the weapon purportedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, with the commission of the offence, more particularly, for the reasons, that the weapon was not sent for chemical examination, which only, could have provided necessary materials to link the weapon with the commission of the offence. To buttress his submission, Mr. Mahanta relies on the following decisions:

2019 (4) SCJ 545 (Kusal Toppo & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand)

1996 (3) GLT 533 : 1996 3 GLR 27 (Nasir Ahmed Vs. State of Assam)

2011 (3) GLT 167 (Madan Malakar Vs. State of Tripura)

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the prosecution case cannot be thrown away for the lapses on the part of the investigating officer, in not sending the weapon of offence for chemical examination. We take note of the submissions made by the learned counsels.

8. PW-7, Dr. Bhaskarjyoti Kheria, who conducted the autopsy, found the following injuries on the body of the victim. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased.

"Dead body of a female, fair complexion, eyes and mouth closed. Rigor morris present. External appearance. There were four penetrative wounds:- (i) Wound on left of the abdomen, measuring 2 X 2 X 10 cm, (ii) Wound on right side of the loin region, measuring 2 X 2 X 10 cm, (iii) Wound on the back left scapular region, measuring 4 X 2 X 15 cm, (iv) Neck laceration, measuring 3 X 2 X 2 cm, Bruise on left elbow.

Abdomen: Two penetrative wounds piercing the peritoneum and intestine.

Blood clot seen over the abdominal cavity.

Thorax: Laceration on the left side-back.

Other organs were healthy.

All the findings were ante mortem in nature.

Time since death was less than 36 hours."

In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhag