IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction, especially in circumstantial cases.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 31/2005 (GR Case No. 238/2002) arising out of the Bokajan Police Station Case No. 89/2002 has convicted the accused / appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, and in default of payment thereof to suffer further simple imprisonment of 6(six) months. The appellant has been in jail since 12.09.2019 till date.

2. We have heard Shri M. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. An FIR was lodged on 21.07.2002 by one Krishna Choudhury (PW1) on the death of his elder brother, Gopal Choudhury. It was narrated that on the previous night at about 9.30 PM, his brother, while coming home by riding a bicycle after purchasing ration was killed by the appellant in front of the factory of the Lahorijan Tea Estate near the railway track and when he was trying to bury the deceased in the marshy land, people caught him red handed. It has been stated that since the last three months the appellant and the deceased were working together and therefore, it was assumed that the incident had taken place because of some monetary issues. Based on the aforesaid FIR, Bokajan Police Station Case No. 89/2002 was lodged and investigation was made leading to submission of a charge sheet. As the appellant had pleaded not guilty the trial was started. In this said trial, 8 nos. of prosecution witnesses (PW) were examined and the informant was examined as PW1.

4. The PW1 in his evidence had stated that on 20.07.2002 at about 9.00 PM, he heard halla, ‘Bachao Bachao’ and ‘Ma Ma’ coming from a distance of 20 feet. He had accordingly gone out and saw the cycle of his elder brother lying along with a bag with some food items. On his cry, few more persons including PW4 – Faguna Rajbongshi had come and at that time they had seen the appellant running away towards the Lahorijan Tea Factory. Thereafter, the Chowkidar of the Tea Factory caught the appellant. A search was made and the body of his brother was found in the nearby pond with a T. Shirt wrapped around his neck. The body was accordingly pulled out of the water and the informant along with Faguna Rajbongshi had gone to the Khatkhati Thana and informed the Police. The Police had accordingly come to the place of occurrence on the same night and inquest was done. The PW1 is also a signatory in the inquest report. It has been stated that the Police had seized one Dao, one hero cycle and one T. Shirt. Thereafter the accused was arrested and on the next date, the ejahar was lodged which was exhibited as Ext.3. The statement of PW1 was also recorded and the dead body was sent for post mortem. He has stated that since the appellant was the only person on the spot with his brother who had tried to run away, it was believed that the appellant had killed his brother.

5. In the cross examination, the PW1 has however stated that it was dark at that time which was about 9.30 PM.

6. Shri Uttam Bhowmick was examined as PW2. He had stated that though he had heard the halla, he did not see the incident and could only notice that the appellant was kept there by the public. He was also a signatory in the seizure list. He had however stated that he did not know about any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. In his cross examination, he had admitted that he had heard that the appellant had killed the deceased.

7. Shri Jogai Tanti had deposed as PW3 who was one of the Chowkidars in the nearby Lahorijan Tea Estate. He had stated that the appellant was found to be running away from the spot and towards the Factory when he was caught. At that time, the appellant did not have any cloth on his body and his body w