Point of Law : Prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence. Each link in the chain of circumstances has been properly established.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, who has appeared on behalf of the State of Assam. None has appeared for the informant.

2. Assailing the judgment dated 19/03/2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in sessions case No. 103 (BGN)/2017 whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his wife and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default stipulation, the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the accused /appellant has murdered his wife Fajila on the midnight of 15/11/2011 by cutting her neck with a sharp weapon. The father of the deceased Md. Forat Kha (PW-1) had lodged an ejahar before the In-charge of the Bidyapur Police Out Post on 16/11/2015 reporting that his daughter Fajila was married to the accused No.1 about 15 years ago and after the marriage, she gave birth to two children. At around 5 A.M. on that day, his nephew had informed him over phone that at about 12 midnight yesterday i.e. on 15/11/2015, the accused person, on the pretext of family dispute, has killed his daughter by cutting her neck with a sharp knife. Then he went to the place of occurrence and found his daughter dead. Her body was taken to Bidyapur Police Out Post. As such, a request had been made to take necessary action in the matter.

4. In the FIR, 5 (five) persons including the present appellant has been shown as accused persons. Upon receipt of information about the incident, a GD entry was made in the Bidyapur Police outpost. On 16/11/2015, Md. Forat Kha had lodged an FIR at the Bidyapur Outpost informing the incident and the ejahar was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Bongaigaon Police Station. Accordingly, Bongaigaon PS Case No. 929/2015 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC where-after, investigation had commenced. On conclusion of the usual investigation, the Investigation Officer (IO) had submitted charge sheet against the appellant Alom Miah under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the IO, the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon had framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused person. However, since the accused had pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.

5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the murder charge, the prosecution side had examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Doctor (PW-5) who had conducted the post-mortem examination; the Circle Officer (PW-7) who had conducted inquest over the dead body, the Scientific Officer (PW-8) who had conducted forensic test of the seized knife and blood sample as well as the IO (PW9) who had conducted investigation in this case. Out of the remaining witnesses, PWs-3, 4 and 6 were the father, brother and sister-in-law of the accused person.

6. PW-1 Forat Khan is the father of the deceased and also the informant in this case. PW-1 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, a quarrel took place between the accused Alom Miah and Fajila over some domestic matter during the day time. The accused had killed Fajila by cutting her neck with a knife at night. At around 5 A.M. on the following day, his nephew Nur Uddin Ali had informed him over phone that accused Alom had killed Fajila by cutting her neck with a knife and that she had been taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital he saw the dead body of Fajila. The body was taken home and buried after the post-mortem examination was performed. This witness has also stated that he had gone to the Police Station and lodged the ejahar by putting his signature. One Advocate’s Clerk had written the ejahar. In his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that the deceased Fajila h