IMPORTANT POINT
In circumstantial evidence cases, a complete chain of evidence must be established to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the presence of motive.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel/Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. M. Chakraborty for the State respondent.

2. This appeal is presented against the Judgment & Order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Session Case No. 30/2019, whereby the accused appellant is awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) for offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:

PW-1 (Niranjan Boro), who is the son of the deceased lodged an FIR on 26.11.2018, alleging inter alia that at about 8:30 p.m. on that day, i.e. 26.11.2018, the accused appellant had an altercation with his mother (Smt. Lata Boro) and then killed her by hacking with a dao. Accordingly, a case was registered being Missamari P.S Case No. 193/2018 under Section 302 IPC.

4. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by PW-8 (Dandadhar Kumar, S.I). On 27.11.2018, PW-9 (Sri Lakshya Jyoti Das, Circle Officer) conducted inquest on the dead body and PW-8, thereafter sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He further prepared a sketch map of the place of the occurrence, which is Ext-4 and also seized the dao, which is Ext-2 and also recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and arrested the accused appellant and forwarded him to judicial custody. He thereafter collected the Post Mortem report, which is Ext-3. After completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Section 302 of IPC, which is Ext-5.

5. Thereafter, the learned Judicial 1st Class Sonitpur, Tezpur on 01.03.2019 committed the case record against the accused appellant to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Trial Court after receiving the case record on 14.03.2019, framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant. Accordingly, the trial commenced, wherein the prosecution examined 9 witnesses including the informant, Medical Officer as well as the Investigating Officer and at the end of the prosecution evidence, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him for explanation. However, the accused appellant generally denied all the incriminating circumstances without offering any explanation and adduced the evidence of one Prabin Koch (Gaonburah) as defence witness. The Trial Court after completing the evidence and upon hearing the parties rendered Judgment on 05.10.2021, whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced thereof.

6. Mr. A. Kalita, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant submits that there are no eye witnesses to the assault. He submits that the case of the prosecution merely rest on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5, who have deposed to have seen through the ventilator of the accused appellant’s house, that the deceased was lying injured bleeding while the accused appellant was sitting near the deceased with a dao in his hand.

7. According to him, the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5 have not found corroboration and as such, the chain of circumstances has been broken and therefore, the conviction based on such testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5 is erroneous. He further submits that since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part. However, he submits that the prosecution has not been able to establish motive on the part of the accused appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC against his wife. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Phoolch and Rathore, 2023 Live Law (SC) 408.

8. He further submits that since the accused appellant while being questioned under Section 3