IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 184/2018 and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 252/2018. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. There is no representation from the respondent no. 2.

2. By filing these two separate appeals under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the two appellants herein have assailed the judgment dated 25.04.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 165 (DH)/2012, and sentence vide order dated 02.05.2018, thereby the appellants were convicted of committing offence punishable under section 302/34 and section 376(2)(g) IPC, and both were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6 (six) months each under section 302 IPC. The appellants were also convicted for committing offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) IPC and both were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months. Both sentences was ordered to run concurrently.

3. In this order the name of the deceased victim and the informant are masked and they are hereinafter referred to as ‘X’ and ‘Y’ respectively to avoid disclosure of their identity.

Prosecution case:

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 24.03.2012 ‘Y’ lodged an FIR with the Sisiborgaon Police Outpost under Silapathar P.S. alleging that on 23.03.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. the victim ‘X’ had gone missing while enjoying cultural programmes organized at Kulajan Tiniali to celebrate Ali Aye Ligang festival. On the following day, the Lot Gaonbura of Gelua Adarsha Gaon informed that a dead body was lying on the national highway at Gelua area. It was suspected that the victim ‘X’ was murdered. Accordingly, Silapathar P.S. Case No. 88/2012 under section 302 IPC was registered.

5. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet no. 177/2012 dated 31.10.2012, was submitted in the case and the appellants were sent-up for trial. In the committal proceeding, the case was found exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Case No. 165(DH)/2012 under section 376(2)(g)/302/34 was registered. On 21.12.2012, charges under section 376(2) (g) and 302/34 were read over and explained to the appellants. The appellants had denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution had examined 17 (seventeen) PWs during trial, being Tuniram Doley (complainant) (PW-1); Prafulla Doley (PW-2); Umesh Pegu (PW-3); Smt. Jyotirekha Doley (PW-4); Binod Kuli (PW-5); Smt. Sabita Doley (PW-6); Sourav Doley (PW-7); Dibyadhar Kardong (PW-8); Manik Tamuli (PW- 9); Dr. Paramananda Deuri (PW-10); Kandarpa Tamuly (PW-11); Babu Ali (PW- 12); Rubul Ali (PW-13); Mustafa Ali (PW-14); Lila Kanta Chutia, I/O (PW-15); Bimal Konwar (Scientific Officer) (PW-16) and Smt. Renu Bora Handique (Scientific Officer) (PW-17) and exhibited the following, viz. ejahar (Ext.1); signatures of complainant –Tuniram Doley [Ext.1(1)]; inquest report (Ext.2); signature of witness-Tuniram Doley [Ext.2(1)]; seizure list (Ext.3); signatures of Tuniram Doley [Ext.3(1)]; seizure list (Ext.4); signature of Dibyadhar Kardong [Ext.4(1)]; signature of witness Babu Ali [Ext.4(2)]; seizure list (Ext.5); signature of Manik Tamuly [Ext.5(1)]; signature of Kandarpa Tamuly [Ext.5(2)]; post mortem report (Ext.6); signature of Dr. P.N. Deuri [Ext.6(1)]; signature of Dr. R.N. Pegu, Jt. Director of Health Services, Dhemaji [Ext.6(2)]; sketch map (Ext.7), signature of Lila Kt. Chutia, I.O. [Ext.7(1)]; charge-sheet (Ext.8); signature of Lila Kt. Chutia, I.O. [Ext.8(1)]; seized mobile (M. Ext.1); seized socks (M.Ext.2); and seized SIM card (M.Ext.3). The defence (i.e. appellants) did not examine any witness.

7. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence on