JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel/Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. M. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Charaideo in Sessions Case No. 10(S-C) of 2016 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fines, with default stipulations.

3. The prosecution in a nutshell is like this Smt. Sumitra Panika had adopted a minor girl called Soru Kharia. Smti. Sumitra Panika is the mother of the present appellant. On the other hand, Soru Kharia is the niece of the complainant Babu Paik.

4. At the relevant time of occurrence, Sumitra Panika had gone out of her house for treatment of her illness and Soru Kharia disappeared. While Sumitra Panika had gone out of her house, the custody of Soru Kharia was given to the appellant.

5. The complainant has alleged that even after 22 days of disappearance of Soru Kharia, the appellant Debajit Panika did not search for her nor he informed her family.

6. During investigation, the witness called Kishor Mall (PW-4) made disclosure statement before police. He stated that the girl burnt herself and the present appellant had disposed of her dead body by throwing the same into Teok river. According to Kishor Mall, he did not disclose the fact before as the appellant had threatened him of dire consequences.

7. Finally, on conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.

8. During the trial of the case, the prosecution side has examined 9 witnesses including the police investigating officer. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the impugned finding.

9. We have carefully gone through the prosecution evidence.

10. The first witness to be examined by prosecution is Monoj Gorh (PW-1). He and the appellant reside in the same village. He knew Soru Kharia also. One day, in the month of June, 2015, police had come to his house. PW-1 has stated that in front of police, the appellant accused him and another person named Lakhiram to be responsible for disappearance of Soru Kharia. PW-1 has further disclosed that prior to the occurrence, the appellant asked for Rs. 2000/- in cash from him and he refused to pay the money. According to PW-1, it might be the reason for bringing a false allegation against him. PW-1 has further disclosed that at one point of time, the appellant had committed murder of a person called Bhairab Mall.

11. During cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that Soru Kharia was the daughter of the maternal uncle of the appellant and she has been residing in the house of the appellant because her parents died while she was a baby. According to PW-1, at the relevant time of occurrence, Soru Kharia was aged about 10 years.

12. The second prosecution witness is Babu Paik (PW-2). He is the complainant. He has stated that 22 days prior to filing of the FIR, the occurrence took place. According to PW-2, Soru Kharia was about 2 years old when Sumitra Panika had adopted her. PW-2 has stated that he came to know about the disappearance of Soru Kharia after the neighbours informed him that she was not seen in the house. When PW-2 asked the appellant about the girl, he reportedly told that the girl had left the house.

13. PW-2 has stated in his evidence that he developed suspicion after he saw a half burnt green apparel in the courtyard of the appellant. PW- 2 had questioned the appellant about the said fact but no answer was given by the appellant. PW-2 also stated that the appellant had earlier committed a murder in the village.

14. PW-2 has disclosed in h