JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J

Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned amicus curiae. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No.111 (J-J)/2011 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The learned amicus curiae submits that the conviction of the appellant is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. Though there are evidences leading to the guilt of the appellant, unfortunately, the same fall short of legal requirement for conviction of the appellant.

4. Before we deal with the submission so advanced, we would like to briefly refer to the facts of the case.

5. A First Information Report was lodged on 18.07.2011 by one Dineswar Bharali, who was examined as PW1, before the Pulibor Police Station alleging interaliathat on 17.07.2011 a headless dead body was recovered from Dholi River which was identified as that of Arup Bharali, son of the elder brother of the complainant. It was also stated that he learnt from reliable sources that on 14.07.2011, the deceased had a quarrel with Pradip Bharali (the appellant herein) and one Manoj Bharali in the night and both of them murdered him and threw the dead body in the river after cutting his head.

On the basis of the said information, Pulibor Police Station Case No.195/2011 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered.

On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant. Since the other accused, Manoj Bharali, was found to be a juvenile, he was proceeded before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board with which we are not concerned in this appeal.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and also proved the documentary evidences including the post mortem report. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.PC where he denied the allegations levelled against him.

7. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidences on record, convicted the appellant under Section 301 as well as 201 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.

8. As mentioned above, the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidences, which can be clearly ascertained from the observation of the learned Trial Court made in paragraph 23, which is reproduced below:-

“23). From the aforesaid discussions the following circumstances have been found to be established by the prosecution:

a) Accused and the deceased stayed together in the same compound although in different houses.

b) Accused and the deceased had a quarrel on the night of 15/07/2011.

c) After the quarrel the deceased was not found and he was found to have been disappeared.

d) There is no intimation about his disappearance by the accused and his family members including his son Manoj Bharali and they did not even search for the deceased Arup Bharali.

e) The dead body of Arup Bharali was found from Dholi river in a decomposed state with his head being severed.

f) Arup Bharali was declared to be dead for about 3-7 days by 18/07/2011 by the doctor.

g) Accused Pradip Bharali absconded when the dead body of Arup Bharali was recovered from the Dholi river.

h) The son of the accused namely Manoj Bharali showed the place where the dead body was thrown in the bank of Dholi river and the I.O. drew the Sketch Map with index according to his disclosure statement.

i) Accused was apprehended by Teok P.S. of Jorhat district and he also did showed the place where the dead body was thrown which is the same place as shown by his son and from where the dead body was recov