The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, but in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to provide a cogent explanation is lighter. Motive and conduct are relevant in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2017 / 22.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, in Sessions Case No. 25/2002, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC, for killing his wife and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

3. The Prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 21.06.2000 was submitted by the Prosecution Witness (PW) No.3, who is the mother of the deceased, which is to the effect that the appellant, who was her son-in-law, had assaulted the deceased at 10 a.m. on 21.06.2000, leading to her death inside their house and thereafter had fled the scene of crime. Pursuant to the FIR submitted by PW-3, Diphu P.S. Case No.102/2000 dated 21.06.2000 was registered under Section 302 IPC.

4. The Investigating Officer (PW-5) thereafter started the investigation of the case and visited the place of occurrence on 21.06.2000 itself. However, he could not find the appellant, who was subsequently arrested only on 24.08.2000, i.e. two months after the deceased had been killed. After completion of his investigation, the IO submitted the charge-sheet, having found a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC against the appellant.

5. The learned Trial Court examined 6 (six) prosecution witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied having any involvement in the death of the deceased. However, with regard to Question No.5, the appellant in his answer/explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was not in the house at the time the IO had come into the house. The appellant further stated in his answer that “prior to the occurrence he found the deceased wife sleeping with another and thereafter went to the house of his mother-in-law saying that he would not further keep the deceased as his wife. Coming back he found the deceased hanging. Thereafter he took down her from hanging for nursing her in presence of his landlord but she died during nursing her.”

6. On considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and keeping in view the answer given by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the answer of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. suggested that he had murdered his wife, having found her in intolerable circumstances by strangulating her. The learned Trial Court also held that the past conduct of the appellant played a vital role, as immediately after the occurrence of the crime, the accused had left the place of occurrence and absconded. Further, the appellant was arrested only after about two months after the date of occurrence. The learned Trail Court also held that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the appellant was to explain as to how the deceased had died as he was found to be inside his house with the dead body at the time of death of the deceased. The learned Trial Court thereafter held that the circumstantial evidence in the case, along with the evidence recorded by PW-3, PW-4 & PW-5, proved that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime in killing his wife by throttling. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentence was imposed upon him.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that none of the prosecution witnesses were eyewitnesses to the death of the deceased and all the evidence was hearsay. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that PW-3 had stated that she had heard that the appellant had killed the deceased from one Hasina Begum. However, Hasina Begum was never made a prosecution witness. He further submits that the case IO (PW-5), in his evidence, had stated that he had examined Hussain Ahmed, Hasina Begum and Sumitra Devi amongst