IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The present appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 117/2018 (GR Case No. 05/18) under Sections 302/448 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default further imprisonment for three months under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and also to undergo six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only in default further imprisonment for 15 days under Section 448 Indian Penal Code.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by the PW1, dated 02.01.2018. As per the same, on the previous night, the appellant had assaulted the deceased by a branch of tree while he was sleeping, causing his death. The Ejahar was accordingly registered and the investigation was conducted leading to laying of the Charge Sheet. The charges were accordingly framed and on its denial, the trial had begun in which, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 nos. of witnesses.

3. PW1 is the informant, who had deposed that she was informed by one Basanti (PW2) who was a resident of the same Tea Garden Line regarding the incident. She had also deposed regarding the surrender of the appellant before the Police. In the cross-examination, however, she had stated of not telling before the Police that PW2 had informed her.

4. PW2 - Basanti is a crucial witness who is a neighbour. She had deposed of hearing halla on the road by the accused appellant that he had killed the deceased. In the cross-examination, however, she had admitted that she was not an eyewitness. She had also stated that the Police did not record her statement.

5. PW3 is the uncle of the appellant and the deceased was his brother. He had deposed of hearing from his wife (PW1) regarding the incident. He had accordingly gone to the house of the deceased and found him lying on the veranda in a pool of blood, who was accordingly taken to the Badlapara Bagan Hospital. In the cross-examination, however, he had clarified that he was not an eyewitness.

6. PW4 is another brother of the deceased who used to stay in the house of PW3. He had stated that the deceased, who was his brother was staying separately with his mother in a different house. In the cross-examination, however, he had reiterated that he was not an eyewitness.

7. PW5 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem on the deceased. He had deposed that on 02.01.2018 he had conducted the post- mortem wherein he had detected fracture of the skull of the deceased. He had given the following opinion-

“In my opinion death is due to brain injury and haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem head injury. Time since death around 10-16 hrs.”

8. PW6 is a resident of the locality and is a seizure witness, so far as the murder weapon is concerned and he had stated of signing the Seizure List by which the Lathi (branch of tree) was seized. In the cross-examination, however, he had clarified that he was not an eyewitness.

9. PW7 is the wife of the appellant, who was also a seizure witness.

She had stated that at 10 PM of the fateful night, she had an argument with the appellant and accordingly left for her maternal aunt's home. In the cross-examination, however, she had stated that she had not seen the occurrence.

10. PW8 is a neighbor who was also a seizure witness. He had stated that he was not present at home at the relevant time and at that stage, PW8 was declared hostile by the prosecution and was accordingly cross- examined. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he did not see any fighting.

11. PW9 is a relative of the appellant who had deposed of hearing some alarm and thought that it was New Year celebration as it was the first day of the year. He had thereafter heard from the people