IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(SK Medhi, J)

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 09/2005 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year under Section 302 IPC. It was further directed that the period of detention undergone by him shall be set off from the period of sentence awarded to him. The appeal involves the death of the wife of the appellant.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 08.11.2004 by the PW7, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased. It was stated that he was informed on 05.11.2004 at about 12/12.30 am that his niece had expired. Thereafter, he had gone to the place of occurrence along with some other persons of the village and found the body hanging by a saree from an iron rod of a post in the roofless room. It was also stated that both her legs were touching the ground and the front side of her body was leaning forward. It was also stated that he learnt from PW5 and PW6 that the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, had handed over his two children to them after informing the news of the death and fled away and had not returned. It was stated that they had suspected the appellant of killing the deceased and keeping the dead body hanging and thereafter fled away. He had also stated that since he was performing the last rites, the lodging of the FIR got delayed.

3. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal information was registered and investigation was made leading to filing of the charge sheet. It may be mentioned that though the charge sheet was filed under Section 304B of the IPC, the charges were, however framed under Section 302 of the IPC and on denial thereof, the trial had begun. In the trial, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 9 (nine) nos. of witnesses. There was also a Court Witness. The post-mortem report, photograph of the victim, inquest report, sketch map and other documents were also proved by various witnesses.

4. PW1 is the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem over the dead body on 06.11.2004. He had stated that on the said date, upon examination, he found that the injuries were in the nature of a non-continuous ligature mark around the neck in between the chin and the cricoid cartilage. As per the opinion, the death was due to asphyxia resulting from hanging.

In the cross-examination, he had clarified that the death was due to hanging.

5. PW2 is a neighbour who had stated that he could learn about the incident from some children and upon going there, he could see that the neck was tied with a saree and the legs of the deceased were touching the ground and hands were on the wall. He had also stated that the appellant was not found in the house. He had also stated that the appellant and the deceased used to quarrel every now and then. PW3 is also a neighbour who had also visited the place of occurrence and found the deceased hanging by a cloth and the appellant was not at home.

In his cross-examination, however, he had stated that there was a cordial relationship between them.

6. PW4 is a neighbour who is also a Ward Member. He had stated that he was informed about the incident by certain persons of the village and he had gone to the place of occurrence which is about 7-8 houses from his residence. He found the deceased was hanging from a concrete beam with a saree in one end which was tied on the neck and the other end was tied to the said beam. He saw that the feet of the deceased were touching the ground. He had also stated that the accused was not seen in the house. He deposed that he had informed the police in the next morning and the police had taken photographs and had also examined the dead body. He had also deposed that the Ejahar was lodged by PW7 who was the maternal uncle of the deceased.

In his cross-examination, he had, however