Point of Law : It is a settled legal proposition that in case a person is absconding after commission of offence of which he may not even be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the doctrine of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel (Addl. P.P. Assam) assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant Sunil Barman challenging the Judgment and order of conviction dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon in Sessions case no 14(D) of 2015 convicting the accused/appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default a further term of simple imprisonment for one year.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Ranjit Das lodged an Ejahar before the Officer In-charge Dhaligaon PS on 01.06.2007 stating inter-alia that on 22.05.2007 Sunil Barman called his younger brother Bhutu Das to Hatiputa village from the labour camp at Kukurmari where he was residing. Since then his younger brother was missing. When he visited Dhaligaon PS to enquire about the matter in the evening of 22.05.2007, he came to know that one dead body had been recovered at village Vhiran on the bank of river Aye. One photograph of the dead body was kept in the police station. Having seen the photograph he could identify the dead body to be of his brother Bhutu Das. It is alleged that Sunil Barman killed his brother in a pre planned manner and left his body on the bank of river aye.

4. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered vide Dhaligaon PS case no 49/07 u/s 302 IPC and police started investigation thereof. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses, drew the sketch map of the place of occurrence, inquest on the dead body was conducted and thereafter sent the dead body for post mortem examination. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused/appellant in the court of learned Additional CJM, Bongaigaon. After furnishing of the necessary copies to the accused/appellant on production of the accused before the court of Additional CJM, Bongaigaon and the case being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed to the Trial court. Accordingly charge was framed u/s 302 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution side examined thirteen (13) witnesses and marked five exhibits. However, the defence side did not adduce any evidence. The plea of the defence was of total denial.

6. After conclusion of the trial, the Learned Sessions Judge, Chirang found the appellant guilty of offence punishable u/s 302 IPC vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2016 as aforesaid.

7. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction.

8. Mr. Z. Hussain, Learned Amicus Curie, appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence on record that the deceased was seen together with the appellant at the place of occurrence. The Trial court has placed heavy reliance upon extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before PW-1 Ranjit Das, PW-2 Kamal Basumatary, and PW-4 Ukil Barman.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the time gap between the point of time when the accused/appellant was last seen with the deceased and when the deceased was found dead is of long duration and therefore the said circumstance is to be ignored.

10. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the accused/appellant is that the incident occurred on 22.05.2007 but the Ejahar was lodged on 01.06.2007 and there is no explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR which is fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel