Point of Law : While dealing with a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothetic.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Choudhury, J.

Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecution, State of Assam.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Sentence dated 21.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bajali at Pathsala in Sessions Case No. 219/2014, whereby the present appellant was held guilty of murder of his wife and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of fine another S.I. for 6 (six) months.

3. The prosecution was set into motion on an F.I.R. being filed by one Ramu Basumatary, the brother of the deceased inter-alia alleging that his younger sister Teji Basumatary who has been married with Sri Milan Swargiary (accused/appellant) about 10 years back, was found brutally murdered by lethal weapons like axe, dao etc, in the house of appellant at about 1:30 P.M. It was further alleged that Teji Basumatary was murdered due some private grudge by her husband (appellant herein) and her in-laws with the help of some miscreants and the name of the miscreants were given in the F.I.R. itself, which includes the present appellant.

4. On such information being received, investigation was started and the F.I.R. was registered being Patacharkuchi PS Case No. 210/2012 under Sections 147/302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Authority laid the charge-sheet against the present appellant along with Chandra Kt. Swargiary, Gopesh Deka, Champak Pathak, Monomati Swargiary and Bina Swargiary under Sections 120(B)/302 of IPC.

5. Thereafter, upon the matter being committed, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charges against the accused under Sections 302/34 of IPC.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to bring home the charges framed against the accused. After the trial, except the present appellant, namely Milan Swargiary, the other accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court below having no evidence against them.

7. The admitted position is that there were no eye witnesses to the incident. However, the learned trial Court convicted the present appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The learned Trial Court held that it was proved that on the day occurrence, the appellant was last seen together with the deceased wife and on the same day, she was found dead in the kitchen with multiple injuries. It was also held by the learned trial Court that the accused Milan Swargiary had failed to give any explanation regarding death of his wife at their kitchen. The plea of alibi of the accused that on the date of incident he was not in his residence and he went out to Pathsala Town in connection with his job and he was a rickshaw puller and he reached the place of occurrence subsequently, was also rejected by the learned trial Court and the learned trial court concluded that it was proved that the relation between Milan Swargiary, the appellant and Teji Basumatary, his wife was not cordial and the dead body of Teji Basumatary was found in the kitchen of Milan Swargiary. Accordingly, the learned trial Court held that the cumulative effect of last seen together, strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, failure of the plea of alibi by the accused had proved the fact that it was none else but the accused Milan Swargiary who intentionally caused the death to his wife, Teji Basumatary. The learned trial Court acquitted the other accused holding that there is no sufficient evidence against them.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sarania submits that there is no evidence to show that appellant was last seen together with his wife immediately prior to the occurrence of the offence, rather there are clinching material to show that Milan went out to Pathshala, a nearby town for his daily work as rickshaw puller and he was informed by fellow villagers regarding murder of his wife and was brought from Path