IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Nikita Danggen, learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, learned Addl. P.P. Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

2. The instant appeal has been instituted, assailing the judgment & order, dated 24.07.2020, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Kameng District, Bomdila, in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, arising out of Rupa Police Station Case No. 39/2014, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life, out of which, a period of 2(two) years was directed to be spent under rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant, herein, was further directed to undergo further detention for 3 months in custody.

3. The brief facts leading to the institution of the present proceeding, is as under:

On 21.08.2014, at 16.30 hrs. a written First Information Report (FIR) was received from one Shri Lambu Regisow, to the effect that on 18.08.2014 at around 2130 hrs, there was a quarrel between his parents in his house and over that, his mother i.e. the appellant, herein, had assaulted his father with a local dao on his neck, mouth, upper and lower jaw for which his father late Govinda Regisow succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of the said First Information Report (FIR), the same was registered by the police as Rupa Police Station Case No. 39/2014 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of the investigation in the matter, the I.O. proceeded to submit a charge sheet being charge sheet No. 28/2014, against the appellant, herein. In the charge sheet, it was, inter alia, recorded that during the interrogation of the appellant, herein, she had stated on 18.08.2014 evening, there was a quarrel between her and her husband after drinking alcohol and she was reportedly, assaulted by the husband. It was further stated that as a result of the quarrel, which continued till late night, while the deceased had gone for toilet; the deceased fell down on the floor of the house and died. It was further recorded in the charge sheet that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased indicated that he was assaulted, resulting in his death. It was further noticed in the said charge sheet No. 28/2014, that during investigation, one local dao and two nos. of bamboo sticks were seized from the place of occurrence on being produced from the complainant as weapons of offence.

The appellant, herein, was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, herein, and the charge on being read over and explained to the appellant, herein, she had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses and the appellant, herein, had also examined herself as defence witness. The learned trial Court on conclusion of the trial, proceeded vide its judgment & order, dated 24.07.2020, to convict the appellant, herein, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and out of the said period of imprisonment; a period of 2(two) years was directed to be spent under rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant, herein, was further directed to undergo further detention for 3 months in custody.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court.

5. Ms. Danggen, learned amicus curiae, at the outset, has submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident forming the basis of the allegations levelled against the appellant, herein, and the learned trial Court basing on circumstantial evidence, proceeded to