IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of events leading to the sole conclusion of guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MEDHI, J

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail under Section 383 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No.1, Margherita, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 88(M)/16. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC. The matter involves the alleged rape and killing of the daughter of the informant.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 26.08.2015 by the PW2- father of the victim. It was stated that on 8:00 pm on 25.08.2015, the daughter was found missing from the house and a search was made. In the morning, the appellant was suspected and questioned and he had confessed that in the previous night, he had lifted her from her house, took her to the cultivation field, forcibly committed rape on her in the bamboo grove and thereafter killed her on the bank of the river. It was also stated that the dead body of the girl was recovered and the police was informed.

3. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal FIR was registered and the investigation was done leading to filing of Charge-sheet under the provisions of law. The charges were accordingly framed and on its denial, the trial had begun. In the trial, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 (eleven) nos. of prosecution witnesses.

4. PW1 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem. According to him, the death was by drowning which was ante-mortem. The doctor, however, did not note any injury marks on the body of the deceased.

5. PW2 is the informant-father of the deceased who had deposed that on the date of the incident while coming from duty the appellant had taken him to his house and offered liquor which he had consumed heavily and thereafter he had come to his house slept on a cot. At that time the victim and his five year old son were also in the house and his wife had gone out to bring water from a little distance and on her returned the victim was found to be missing and accordingly a search was made in which other villagers had also joined. During the search they found the appellant with his hands stained with mud and on suspicion had interrogated him. He deposes that though initially the appellant had denied his involvement, subsequently he made a confession before him and such confession was made before the police had arrived. He had also deposed that the tobacco container of the appellant was found on the cot where the daughter was sleeping and the said container could be identified by him.

6. PW3 is a hearsay witness whose deposition is not relevant.

7. PW4 is a co-villager and he had deposed that he was in the search party and on the next day, the body of the victim was found near the Dibru river. He had also made a statement that the appellant had confessed in his presence regarding his involvement. He had also deposed that even after arrival of the police, the appellant had confessed his guilt. In the cross-examination, however, he has revealed that the appellant was gheraod by around 30 people of the village and the appellant was assaulted and rebuked by the villagers.

8. PW5 is a co-villager, who had deposed that he was also in the search party for the daughter of the informant who could not be traced out. He had also deposed of finding one tobacco container of the appellant from the bed of the victim which he could identify. In his cross examination, however, he had stated that the accused was assaulted by the people who had assembled there and he was apprehended till the arrival of the police.

9. PW6 is the mother of the victim. She has stated that on the fateful evening when her daughter was sleeping with her younger brother, her husband had come home at a drunken condition and she had gone to fetch water. After returning, she did not find the daughter and raised an alarm wherea