Point of Law: Mere fact that the accused person was absconding after the incident, cannot, in our opinion, be a ground to convict him for committing murder of his wife unless the charge is proved on the basis of cogent evidence brought on record.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State. None has appeared for the informant in this case.

2. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 21-05-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. 97/2010 convicting the sole appellant under Section 302 of the IPC on the charge of murdering his wife and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 14-01-2019 an ejahar was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Fakiragram Police Station by Md. Idris Ali Akand reporting that his daughter Musstt. Earon Bibi had been given away in marriage to Md. Azim Uddin Paramanik of Dhepdhepi village 4/5 years ago as per Muslim Shariat by executing Kabin Nama. On 11-01-2009 he was informed that Musstt. Earon Bibi had gone missing from her matrimonial home since the night of 08-01-2009. Since then they had been searching for her in the nearby houses of kith and kin. On 14-01-2009, at about 07:00 a.m. in the morning, his son Md. Ayub Hussain saw two dogs digging the sand in the alluvial land near the river Gangeya and became suspicious. Coming nearer he had dug out with his hand cloths of the victim. The matter was then informed to the Officer-in-Charge of Sithila Police Outpost. Later, the sand in that spot was dug out in presence of police and magistrate and the dead body of his daughter was recovered. The informant had also stated that he suspected Md. Azim Uddin Pramanik, son of Md. Majibar Pramanik to have killed his daughter and kept the body buried on the bank of river Gangeya in collusion with the other accused persons, viz.Md. Jabed Ali Akand, Musstt. Aziran Bibi, Md. Jahan Miyan and Md. Majibar Pramanik.

4. Based on the FIR dated 14-01-2009 Fakiragram P.S. Case No. 3/2009 was registered against the five accused persons under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) had submitted charge-sheet against all the five accused persons including the present appellant. Accordingly, charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 302/201/34 IPC and were read over and explained to them. However, the accused persons had pleaded not guilty, as a result of which, they were made to face trial.

5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. To bring home the charge, the prosecution side had examined as many as 12 witnesses including the Doctor (PW-10) who had conducted the Postmortem Examination as well as the two I/Os, viz.PW-11 and PW-12 who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. The statements of the accused persons including the present appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but the defense side did not adduce any evidence. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar had passed the impugned judgment dated 21-05-2015 convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him as aforesaid. However, the remaining four co-accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court due to want of evidence against them.

6. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire prosecution case is based on suspicion, conjecture and surmises inasmuch as the prosecution could not prove the charge framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. According to Mr. Mahajan there is not even an iota of evidence to implicate the appellant for committing the murder of his wife and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence awarded by the learned trial court is wholly untenable in the eye of law and hence, is liable to be set aside by this Court.

7. Responding t