IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; extrajudicial confessions need corroboration to be reliable.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Sessions Case No. 32/2003 (Old)/Sessions Case No. 83/2017(New) corresponding to G.R. Case No. 23/2002 & Baithalangso Police Station Case No. 09/2002 under Section 302 IPC , by which the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only in default further Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 6 (six) months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by the PW-4, who is the brother of the deceased. The Ejahar which was lodged on 09.03.2002 had stated that on the previous evening at about 9 p.m. on 08.03.2002, the appellant had caused the death of his sister by severing the head. The sister of the PW-4 was the wife of the appellant. He had also stated that the appellant had suffered from mental illness. Based on the said Ejahar, the formal F.I.R. was registered and investigation had begun leading to laying of the Charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. The charges were accordingly framed and the appellant having pleaded not guilty, the trial had begun in which, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 5 (five) nos. of witnesses.

4. PW-1 is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body. He opined that the death was caused by a sharp heavy weapon. The post-mortem report was proved as Exhibit-1.

5. PW-2 is a hearsay witness. He had stated that he heard about the incident on the next morning and the appellant did not utter anything as to where the severed head was thrown.

6. PW-3 is another hearsay witness, who is the brother of the informant. He had also stated that he heard about the incident in the next morning from the villagers. He has, however, deposed that the appellant had confessed of his guilt in presence of villagers and himself.

7. PW-4 is the informant, who had proved the F.I.R. as Exhibit-2. He had stated that while he was at his home, his niece Nipul Sagra had come and informed that the appellant had hacked the deceased who was her mother. In his cross-examination, he had stated that his house was at a distance of two minutes from the place of occurrence.

8. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer (I.O), who had stated about the lodging of the F.I.R., which was proved as Exhibit-2. He had also proved the Seizure List as Exhibit-3. He had also deposed that one Rupram Kalita, since deceased, had sent the appellant to record confessional statement. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the materials against the appellant were put to him in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, wherein the appellant had denied his involvement. However, with regard to Question No. 8, the appellant had tried to give an explanation of alibi that on the fateful night, he was in his farmhouse which was about 3 KMs away from his dwelling house. He had also stated that he did not know who had killed the deceased and that he was falsely implicated. The appellant had, however, declined to adduce any defence evidence.

9. Based on the aforesaid depositions and the materials on record, including the exhibits, the learned Judge had passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentencing, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

10. We have heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

11. Dr. Gogoi, the learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the materials on record would not be sufficient to come to a conclusion of guilt. He has submitted that there is admittedly no eyewitness in the aforesaid incident and the only evidence which has been gathered by the prosecution is circumstantial in nature. He has submitted that though the death has been caused by severing the head of the deceased, there is nothi