IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment dated 12.04.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, in Sessions Case No. 52/2018 (Old No. 46/2017), whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for six months under Section 302 IPC .

2. The same involves the death/killing of the wife of the appellant, who was accused of such offence.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 25.09.2016 by PW-3, who is the brother of the deceased. It has been stated that at about 3.40 pm on that day when his younger sister was working in the house, the appellant had suddenly hacked her on her neck by means of a Dao as a result of which she fell on the ground and died on the spot. It was stated that he came to know about the same when the neighbours immediately came there and the accused went to the Police Station taking along the Dao. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal F.I.R. was registered and investigation was done leading to laying of a charge-sheet. The charges were accordingly framed by the learned Court under Section 302 of the IPC and on its denial, the trial had begun.

4. The prosecution had adduced evidence through 9 (nine) numbers of PWs and subsequent to filing of this appeal, evidence of 2 (two) CWs have also been recorded.

5. PW-1 is a person of the locality who had deposed of hearing that the accused had killed his wife. He had also heard that the accused was seen running with a Dao.

6. PW-2, similarly, deposed that he heard from one Dipak, who was his brother regarding the incident. It may be mentioned that initially Dipak was not examined, who was only examined as a Court Witness, later as per orders passed by this Court in this proceeding.

7. PW-3 is the brother of the deceased who is also the informant. He deposed of witnessing the appellant coming with a Dao to the highway. He also deposed of hearing the accused shouting that he had killed a person. In his cross-examination, however, he had clarified that he had not seen the occurrence.

8. PW-4 had deposed of hearing from local people about the incident. He is a Seizure Witness and the Seizure List was proved as Exhibit-1. He had, however, clarified that the Seizure List was signed by him at the Police Station.

9. PW-5 is the informant, who had stated that while coming home from market, some villagers reported that the appellant was proceeding on road shouting that he had killed a person. He had deposed that his niece Gita Hajong had told him about the incident. It may be mentioned that Gita Hajong was initially not examined by the prosecution and has been done consequently upon orders passed by this Court.

10. PW-6 is the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body. As per his opinion, the death was caused by a sharp cut wound on the neck.

11. PW-7 had deposed that he saw the appellant proceeding on road shouting that he had killed his wife. He had also deposed about informing the Gaonbura, who had, accordingly reported the matter to the Police.

12. PW-8 had deposed that he had seen the appellant coming to the Police Station and he was himself present in the Police Station. In the cross- examination, however, he had clarified that he had not seen from whom the Dao was seized.

13. PW-9 is the I.O., who had deposed that one local journalist had informed him about the incident, for which, a GD entry was registered and thereafter, he had gone to the place of occurrence. On way, he had found the appellant. He had also stated about preparing the Sketch-Map which was proved as Exhibit-3. The F.I.R. was proved as Exhibit-5. He had also sub