IMPORTANT POINT
The Court reiterated that suspicion alone cannot replace proof, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial cases.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. This criminal appeal from jail under Section 383, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [‘the Code’ and/or ‘the CrPC’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu [‘the trial court’ for short] in New Sessions Case no. 18 of 2018 [Old Sessions Case no. 40 of 2014], which arose out of Bokajan Police Station Case no. 131/2013 and corresponding G.R. Case no. 729/2013. In the trial, the accused-appellant faced a charge of patricide and after the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong finding him guilty for committing the murder of his father, Sukhu Sureng under Section 300, Indian Penal Code [IPC], had sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1 [one] year.

2. We have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. M. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent State.

3. Mr. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant has submitted, at first, that though at the time of submission of the charge-sheet, the prosecution listed Sakuntala Suren, the wife of the deceased and the mother of the accused, as an eye-witness but in the course of trial, the prosecution did not examine Sakuntala Suren as a witness as she, in the meantime, had become unable to testify due to her paralytic condition and loss of speech. As a result, the prosecution sought to prove the charge of patricide against the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Mr. Ahmed has submitted that there were many missing links in the prosecution story and the vital circumstance were not proved by credible evidence. He has contended that the medical evidence is deficient to establish that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one. He has submitted that most of the witnesses, other than the Autopsy Doctor and the I.O., were witnesses who had reached the place of occurrence much after the alleged incident which occurred in the night intervening 24.09.2013 and 25.09.2013. Contending as above, Mr. Ahmed has submitted that in view of failure on the part of the prosecution to establish its case, the accused was not required to provide any explanation. Yet, the accused had provided an explanation which, according to Mr. Ahmed, was a plausible and acceptable one. But the learned trial court proceeded to draw inference on the basis of suspicions and conjectures from various circumstances to reach a finding of guilt against the accused. Mr. Ahmed has, thus, contended that in view of the missing links in the chain the benefit should go to the accused.

4. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court after proper appreciation of the evidence/materials on record, has rightly reached the finding as regards the guilt of the accused. Ms. Bhuyan has contended that as per the Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report [Ext.-3], there were multiple lacerated wounds on the forehead and ear of the deceased and since it has been established that the accused was present in the house in the night intervening 24.09.2013 and 25.09.2013, he was under obligation to provide a plausible and acceptable explanation as to in what circumstances his father, that is, the deceased met his death on that fateful night. Referring to the Inquest Report [Ext.-2], Ms. Bhuyan has pointed out that the time of death was mentioned as 12-30 a.m. on 25.09.2013 and the same is consistent with the version given in the FIR, lodged on 25.09.2013 by the wife of the deceased, who is also the mother of the accused. In such circumstance, the explanation given by the accused during his examination under Section 313, CrPC cannot be accepted. M