IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the guilt of an accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence should be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition by the appellant Shri Baba @ Khumtai Borah through the Superintendent, District Jail, Dhemaji impugning the judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 108(DH)/2014, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Criminal Appeal, in brief, are as follows : -

(i) That on 30.03.2009, one Smt. Junmoni Borah lodged an FIR before Officer-In-Charge of Silapathar Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on 29.03.2009, at about 8.00 PM, her brother, Khumtai Borah (present appellant) had a quarrel with her father, Bolin Borah at their house. It was also alleged that during the quarrel the present appellant had inflicted blow to his father with the blunt side of an “axe” causing grievous injury on his person. The father of the informant was immediately taken to the hospital.

(ii) On receipt of the said FIR, Silapathar P.S. Case No. 85/2009 was registered under Section 325/307 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated. During the course of investigation, the father of the informant succumbed to his injuries on 30.03.2009 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the case.

(iii) Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji by the Committal Court, i.e., the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhemaji. The appellant faced the trial remaining on bail.

(v) On 05.01.2015, charges under Section 307/302 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the present appellant. Same on being read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(vi) During the trial, the prosecution side examined six (06) witnesses to bring home the charges against the present appellant. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. He led no evidence in his defence. However, by the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner, as already described in Paragraph No. 2 hereinabove.

4. The point to be determined in this appeal is that as to whether the Trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the appellant, namely, Shri Baba Borah @ Kumtai Borah under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, let us go through the evidence which is available on record.

6. PW-1, Shri Bulu Saikia, who is not an eye witness, has deposed that he went to the house of the appellant after coming to know about the fact that someone has killed the father of the appellant. In the house of the appellant, police asked him to put his signature on a piece of paper, which is exhibited at Exhibit-1, however he is not aware about as to what was written on the said paper. The cross-examination of this witness has been declined by the defence side.

7. PW-2, Shri Prabhat Saikia, has deposed that some children told him about the fact that the appellant had killed his father with an “axe”. When he went to the house of the appellant, police had seized the axe and prepared one seizure list, which has been exhibited by PW-2 as Exhibit-1, wherein hi