Point of Law:Plea of alibi - when the plea of alibi, taken by an accused, is found to be false, it becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances, which may appear against the accused

JUDGMENT :

M.A. Ali, J.

Learned counsel Mr. N.J. Das appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional P.P., Mr. M. Phukan for the respondent were heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2019 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 178(NL)/2016, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell was that the deceased Janmoni Baruah was the wife of the appellant Anupam Baruah. The appellant hacked his wife Janmoni Baruah to death on the night of 19.01.2016. Having come to know about the occurrence, the brother of the deceased lodged the FIR (Ext.3) with the Bihpuria Police Station, on the basis of which, police registered Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 31/2016 under Section 302 IPC and upon completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant.

4. During the course of trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was abjured by him. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses in order to bring home the charge. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the appellant took the plea of innocence and had examined three witnesses in his defence.

5. Appreciating the evidence adduced by both the sides, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

6. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence and the conviction of the appellant was recorded solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution could neither adduce actionable evidence to establish any of the circumstances conclusively, nor could any chain of circumstances capable of drawing an inference unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused, be established and as such, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is unsustainable, submits Mr. Das. Supporting the impugned judgment, learned Additional P.P. contended that overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution has established the incriminating circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The incriminating circumstances duly established together with the falsity of the defence plea completed the chain, so as to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the impugned judgment calls for no interference, submit Mr. Phukan.

8. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides and also meticulously scrutinized the evidence and materials brought on record.

9. As revealed from the submission made by the learned counsel, there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case is solely based on the circumstantial evidence. On our assessment of the evidence and perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC primarily relying on the following circumstances.

(i) The death of the deceased in the mysterious circumstances in the matrimonial home,

(ii) the appellant was with the deceased at the time of occurrence.

(iii) Ill treatment to the victim by the accused appellant since her marriage upon demand of money.

(iv) Availability of blood stain in the bed and other places in the house.

(v) Leading to discovery of an axe allegedly used in the commission of the offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

(vi) False explanation given by the appellant.

10. Out of the eight prosecution witness, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 are basically the witnesses to the occurrence. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 are formal witnesses to the search and seizure. PW-7 & PW-8 are the Doctor and Investigating Officer respectively. The fat