Point of Law: Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Conviction Set aside - Benefit of Doubt given to appellant - Prosecution has failed to establish chain of circumstances which is consistent with single hypothesis that it is none other than appellant who had committed murder of deceased - Moreover medical evidence shows absence of spermatozoa on deadbody of victim.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent No.2.

2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No.73/2015 the sole appellant Md. Zakaria Mazumdar was convicted under Section 302/364 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of Smt. Rinku Deb and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.04.2013 the informant Ashok Kumar Ram, accompanied by his wife Rinku Deb was coming from Mizoram to Silchar via Bolphui, in a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.AS-11AC-4317 which was driven by the accused. While coming towards Silchar, the vehicle suddenly stopped and the accused had asked the informant to push the vehicle. While the informant was pushing the vehicle, his wife was inside the Tata Sumo. The vehicle took start but the accused drove away along with the informant’s wife. In this manner, the accused had abducted his wife, committed rape on her and also committed theft of cash amount of Rs.30,000/-along with other belongings and inflicted injuries upon her and thereafter, dropped her near the Capital Travels, Silchar. Later on, the victim was sent to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital (SMCH) in an 108 ambulance but was later declared dead.

4. On 04.04.2013 an ejahar was lodged by the husband of the victim viz. Sri Ashok Kumar Ram before the Officer-in-Charge, Silchar Police Station based on which, Silchar P.S. Case No.689/2013 under Sections 366/376/302/379 IPC was registered. Upon investigation of the case the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under Sections 366/302/379 IPC. Based on the charge-sheet, charges under Sections 364/379/302 IPC were framed by the learned court below. Since the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.

5. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as six witnesses including the doctor who had conducted the autopsy as PW-5 and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as PW-6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused had denied his involvement in the incident but the defence side did not adduce any evidence. Based on the materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar has held that the charges brought against the accused could be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, convicted the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Mr. L. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that in the instant case there are serious lapses and omissions not only in the investigation but also in conducting the trial of the case. He submits that neither the Sumo vehicle nor the accused had been identified by anyone including the informant. That apart, the prosecution had also failed to establish the chain of circumstances so as to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant as per the requirement of law. On the contrary, the version of the informant appears to be wholly inconsistent and raises grave suspicion as regards the veracity of the prosecution case. Mr. Mazumdar, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.2018 and for acquitting the appellant.

7. By supporting the impugned judgment Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, has argued that the name of the accused and the vehicle number has been mentioned in the ejahar itself and to such extent it cannot be said that the driver of the Sumo i.e. the accused could not be identified. By placing re