JUDGMENT :

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No. 1 and Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Sessions Case No. 168/2014, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

3. As per prosecution case, on 10-08-2006 at about 3 am, the appellant killed his wife Saleha Begum and kept the body concealed in the "Dhansa" cultivation field. The FIR (Ext.-2) was lodged by the brother of the appellant, on the basis of which police registered Hajo PS Case No. 151/2006 and commenced investigation. During investigation, police recorded the statement of the witnesses, recovered the body of the deceased, PW-11, Circle Officer prepared the inquest report and the post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Gunajit Das.

4. The autopsy doctor was not examined. However, Dr. R. Chaliha, Head of the Forensic Medicine, GMCH, who was familiar with the handwriting of the autopsy doctor was examined by the prosecution as PW-8 to prove the post mortem report (Ext.-3). As per the post mortem report, following injuries were found on the body of the victim --

I. Pressure abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm placed at middle of the front of neck near thyroid outlets.

II. Another pressure abrasion of size 1.5 x 1 cm at the front of neck 3 cm right of midline in the middle part.

III. Another pressure abrasion of size 1.5 x 1 cm with crysonic scratch abrasion over lower part of the front of neck 4 cm right of midline.

IV. Defuse bruise over lower part of right side of front of neck bluish in colour on direction of neck defused contusion of soft tissues with drying of tissues under the present abrasion.

5. In the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, death was due to manual strangulation, which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Deceased was pregnant at the time of death. Death was caused within 24 to 36 hrs of the post mortem examination. Dr. R. Chaliha (PW-8), who was Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati stated to have concurred with the report prepared by the autopsy doctor.

6. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the appellant u/s. 302/201 IPC. The offence being triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges u/s. 302/201 IPC, which was abjured by the appellant.

7. During the trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in order to bring home the charges and on appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

8. Aggrieved, the accused/appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Biswas submits, that the conviction was based solely on the evidence of leading to discovery. Mr. Biswas further contends that there was, in fact, no evidence of leading to discovery u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as, the body was recovered even before lodging of the FIR, and as such, there was no question of leading to discovery u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act, submits Mr. Biswas.

10. Supporting the conviction and sentence, learned Addl. P. P. submits, that there are evidence on record to prove the charges, and as such, the impugned judgment calls for no interference.

11. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel and also scrutinized the evidence and materials brought on record.

12. On our assessment of the evidence and materials on record, we find that there was no direct evidence of the offence, as no one had seen the occurrence, and the learned trial court recorded the conviction of the a