In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

1. This criminal appeal from Jail is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge no. 2 [FTC], Tinsukia in Sessions Case no. 101[T] of 2018. By the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2019, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced 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. It has been ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellant shall be set-off against the sentence of imprisonment under Section 428, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['CrPC' or 'the Code', for short].

2. We have heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused- appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State of Assam.

3. Ms. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that there was no eye-witness to the incident of alleged murder and the case was based on circumstantial evidence. It is the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove all the circumstances by cogent evidence, thereby, leaving a number of missing links in the chain. But despite such failure, the learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant for the charge of uxoricide. There was nothing in evidence that the accused-appellant was last seen with the deceased and as such, the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge of murder. The learned Amicus Curiae has referred to the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984:INSC:121 : [1984] 4 SCC 116, to contend that the principles laid down therein to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence are not found established in the present case and even if it is found that the plea of alibi taken by the accused is not acceptable then also such failure on the part of the accused- appellant is not to be taken into account as such failure would not strengthen the case of the prosecution in any manner.

4. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court had considered all the circumstances and finding the chain of circumstances complete, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the accused-appellant took a plea of alibi but he failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the plea of alibi. The learned trial court had rightly discarded the plea of alibi, taken by the accused-appellant. To buttress such submission, the decision in Shaikh Sattar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010:INSC:546 : [2010] 8 SCC 430, has been referred to. It has been contended that the medical evidence has clearly pointed towards a homicidal death. The accused-appellant had failed to offer any explanation as to how the death of his wife had occurred when it was his duty to offer plausible explanation. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that if the entire facts and circumstances are taken into account, then no other hypothesis other than the hypothesis of guilt of the accused-appellant is deducible. With such contentions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant.

5. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence/materials available in the case records of Sessions Case no. 101[T] of 2018, in original. We have also gone through the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of argument.

6. The case, Sessions Case no. 101[T] of 2018 arose out of Doomd