IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence, including the last seen together principle and admissibility of disclosure statements, can be sufficient for a murder conviction, provided there is a clear link between the accused and the crime.

JUDGMENT :

(Suman Shyam, J.)

Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 164-2019 and Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal (J) No. 38/2019. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State in both the appeals.

2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 13-12-2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaon in connection with Sessions Case No. 77(N)/2017 whereby, both the appellants/ accused persons were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for committing murder of Anowar Hussain and each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further one month. Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, hence, we propose to dispose of the appeals by this common order.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials on record, briefly stated, is that on 27-06-2017, Anowar Hussain, the 14 years old minor son of the informant Iliyas Ali, was found dead in the betel nut plantation situated at the north of the house of the deceased with injuries on the neck. On 28-06-2017, the father of the deceased, viz. Iliyas Ali lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Kampur Police Station reporting the incident. Based on the ejahar dated 28-06-2017, Kampur P.S. Case No. 169/2017 was registered under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, the police had conducted investigation in connection with the police case. The two appellants, viz. Khairul Islam and Saiful Islam were also arrested during the course of investigation. On being lead by the accused persons, the police had also recovered the shirt of the deceased which was concealed in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. After conclusion of investigation, police had submitted charge-sheet against the two accused persons under Sections 120(B)/364/302/201/34 IPC. Based on the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the learned trial court had framed charge against the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. However, the charge having been read over and explained to them, both the accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, the matter went up for trial.

4. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the charge brought against the accused persons, the prosecution side had examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses including the Doctor(PW-5) who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body and the Investigating Officer (PW-11) who had conducted investigation in the police case and had submitted charge-sheet.

5. After recording the evidence led by the prosecution, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereby, both of them had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. However, the defense side did not adduce any evidence.

6. Upon conclusion of trial and on appreciation of the materials available on record, the learned trial court was of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the murder charge brought against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted them under Sections 302/34 IPC and awarded the sentences, as noted above.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 13-12-2028 passed by the learned trial court, Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant Khairul Islam in Crl. Appeal No. 164/2019 has argued that save and except the alleged disclosure statement, there is not even and iota of evidence against his client to prove the murder charge. The learned Sr. counsel has also argued that even the disclosure statement leading to the alleged discovery of the shirt of the deceased is inadmissible in the eyes of law since there is no independent wit