IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to guilt; the absence of direct evidence does not negate conviction if circumstantial evidence is compelling.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Biswanath, Chariali, Sonitpur in Sessions Case No. 16/2019 (GR Case No. 873/2018) convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C with R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). The accusation against the appellant is of causing death to his wife.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 22.10.2018 by the PW1, who is the consanguine brother of the appellant. It has been alleged in the Ejahar that on the previous evening at about 7 PM, the appellant had assaulted his wife with an axe causing her death. It is alleged that the appellant was having suspicion on his wife of having extra marital affair. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal F.I.R. was registered and investigation was made leading to laying of the charge sheet. The charges were accordingly framed and on denial of the same, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 14 numbers of witnesses.

3. PW1 is the informant, who in his deposition had stated that the appellant had assaulted the deceased and fled away in the night. On the following day, the appellant was caught and brought back. He had also deposed of witnessing blood stuck on the reverse side of the axe. In the cross-examination, it is stated that the place where the appellant was found on the next day is Khudibasti which is about 3-4 kms. He had also stated that the houses of the informant and the appellant were adjacent and that, on being apprehended, the appellant was assaulted. He has however clarified that he was not an eyewitness.

4. PW2 is a co-villager who deposed about hearing of the matter. PW3 is another co-villager who is also the President of the VDP. He deposed that on the following morning of the day of the occurrence, the appellant was found near Baligarh. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he found the deceased lying injured on bed and the bed had got wet with blood. He had deposed regarding witnessing injury on the forehead and another injury on the backside of the head of the deceased.

5. PW4 is a sister of the appellant who had deposed that on the fateful evening at about 7 PM, she went for duty and at about 10 pm, the VDP Secretary called her over phone. She had deposed about hearing about the assault. She had also deposed that the appellant was found the next morning at Moratupa.

6. PW5 is the sister-in-law who is a crucial witness in the present case. She had deposed that after having dinner, they had gone to bed when she could hear the deceased saying something to the appellant. Accordingly, she had gone to the house of the appellant when the door was opened by the appellant and he had asked her to go back. She, however, peeped inside and could find the deceased in an injured state on the bed. In her cross-examination, she had clarified that she had peeped by taking a lamp in her hand when the appellant had shoved her. Thereafter, he had fled away and she had gone inside the house and had lit another lamp and found the deceased in an injured state lying on the ground.

7. PW6 is a seizure witness and a co-villager who had deposed about hearing about the incident. In his cross-examination, he had, however, stated that he had put the signature on the Seizure List after two days of the incident. PW7 is another neighbour and a seizure witness who deposed about hearing about the incident. PW8 had deposed that he could hear from a boy of tender age about the incident and accordingly came to the place of occurrence where he found a woman lying with her face downward in the courtyard.

8. PW9 is a co-villager who had stated that he was informed by phone by PW8 regarding the incident and on reaching, he found the deceased in an injured state on the ground. He had also deposed that the accused had fled and the people present had said that the acc