JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Ms. Meghali Barman, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Das, Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1. None has appeared for the respondent No.2.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in connection with Sessions Case No.55(JT)/2018 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife Sumi Sonowal by setting her ablaze, the present appeal has been preferred from the Jail.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is to the effect that on 31.01.2018, at around 4:30 p.m. in the evening, following a quarrel that took place between the appellant and his wife Sumi, the former had set the victim ablaze leading to 90% burn injury. The victim was shifted to the hospital but on the next morning, she died.

4. On 02.02.2018, the mother of the victim viz., Smt. Makhani Sonowal had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Borhulla Police Station reporting the incident. On receipt of the ejahar, BXL P.S. Case No.15/2018 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC. The police then took up the matter for investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant/accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Based on the charge-sheet, the learned trial court had framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the appellant/accused. However, since the appellant had claimed innocence, the matter went up for trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 14 witnesses including the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination (PW12) and the I.O. who had carried out investigation (PW-14). That apart, the Officer who had conducted inquest of the dead body was also examined as Court Witness No.1 (CW-1). The appellant had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. Eventually, on consideration of the evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2019, the learned trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife Sumi Sonowal and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-with default stipulation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.

6. By referring to the materials available on record, Ms. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that according to PWs-9 and 10, the victim had committed suicide by burning herself and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC was unsustainable in the eye of law. Contending that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge brought against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence, Ms. Barman submits that the present is a fit case for acquittal.

7. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, on the other hand, has argued that although PWs-9 and 10 have claimed to have heard the victim saying that she had set herself on fire, yet, those witnesses did not say so before the I.O. As such, their evidence was liable to be discarded. Contending that there are sufficient evidence to show that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was not good and that the incident took place inside the house of the victim and in presence of the appellant, Ms. Bhuyan submits that the prosecution case has been fully established by circumstantial evidence. Ms. Bhuyan has further argued that the failure on the part of the accused/appellant to offer proper explanation as to the circumstances under which the victim sustained burn injuries would be an additional link in the chain of circum