The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The burden of proof on the prosecution and the corresponding burden on the accused to explain circumstances within their special knowledge were emphasized.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - The learned senior counsel Mr. HRA Choudhury, assisted by Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. B. Bhuyan as well as Mr. M.U. Mondol, learning counsel appearing for the informant-respondent no. 2 were heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2008, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.15,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Prosecution case in brief was that the deceased Sahiton Nessa, cousin sister of the informant, was given in marriage to the appellant Sattar Ali, who were living in the homestead of Montaz Ali. The appellant Sattar Ali was trying to compel the deceased to engage in prostitution. As the deceased declined to engage in such immoral activities, she was threatened to kill and eventually on 24.03.2003 the present appellant along with Montaz Ali, Mohor Ali, Asraf Ali and some other villagers killed the deceased Sahiton Nessa. PW-2 Malbor Hussain having receipt the information about the death of the victim immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and lodged the FIR (Exhibit-1), on the basis of which Police registered Bagribari P.S. Case No. 31/2003 under Sections 143/376/511/302 IPC.

4. During investigation, Police recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared Inquest Report, subjected the body of the victim to post-mortem examination and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant under Section 302 IPC.

5. During trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC, which was abjured by him. Prosecution examined 9 (nine) witnesses to substantiate the charge. After completion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and stated that at the time of occurrence he was at Dhubri. Upon appreciation of evidence the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and awarded sentence as indicated above.

6. On our assessment of the evidence, we find that there was no direct evidence or eye witness to the occurrence and the learned Sessions Judge primarily relying on, the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession recorded the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The circumstances on which the learned trial Court placed reliance for recording conviction of the appellant has been summarized in Paragraph-36 of the judgment. We noticed in the impugned judgment that the learned trial Court relied on the following circumstances to record the conviction of the appellant.

(i) The appellant tried to engage the victim, being his wife, in flesh trade and when she refused, she was murdered. This circumstance was taken into consideration as motive of the offence, (ii) the death was homicidal as the deceased died due to manual strangulation, (iii) deceased died in the matrimonial house where she used to reside with her husband, (iv) the accused was with the deceased in the same house on the date of incident where the occurrence took place (v) the accused failed to offer any explanation as to how his wife died in the secrecy and (vi) the appellant absconded and tried to avoid the arrest after the occurrence.

7. The law as to the circumstantial evidence is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. It has been held by the Apex Court in long line of decisions that in a case where the prosecution case rest solely on the circumstantial evidence, prosecution has to prove all the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstances so proved much form a chain which leads to the lone conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of the accused. The Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of M