IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence; mere suspicion or non-explanation of conduct is insufficient for establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

(S.K. Medhi, J)

The instant appeal has been preferred by two appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 49/2017 convicting the accused/appellants u/s 302/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) i/d to undergo R.I. for 1 year. While the appellant no.1 is the mother, the appellant no.2 is her son. The appeal involves the death of the wife of the appellant no.2.

2 . The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an ejahar by one Bikramjit Das - PW3 on 11.11.2014. It has been alleged that on the previous day, i.e., 10.11.2014 at about 7.30 a.m., his sister, who was the wife of the appellant no.2 was killed by poisoning. It may however be mentioned that on 10.11.2014 itself, the appellant no.2 had lodged an information on the death of his wife in connection with which Patherkandi PS UD Case No. 19/2014 was registered. Be that as it may, both the cases were amalgamated and the instant case was registered under sections 498(A) / 302 / 304(B) / 34 of IPC . The initial charge against the appellant no. 2 was under Section 302 of the IPC . However, the charges were amended and 304(B) IPC was added and the appellant no.1, who is the mother of the appellant no. 2 was arraigned as an accused.

3. After completion of the investigation and laying of the charges, the charges were framed which had also undergone certain amendments as mentioned above and those being denied, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had examined eight numbers of witnesses.

4. PW1 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. In his report (Ext.-1) as well as in his deposition, he had stated that there was no external injuries on the body and no definite opinion could be gathered on his examination for which the matter was referred to the FSL. After the said examination by the FSL, it turned out that the death was by poisoning by use of organo phosphorus pesticides (Ext.-4).

5. PW2 is a neighbour of the matrimonial home. In his cross-examination, however, he had stated that the parties were leading a conjugal peaceful married life. He had also stated that the Annaprashanna of the child was held at the matrimonial house and the last rites of the deceased were also performed by the appellants.

6. PW3 is the informant, who is the brother of the deceased in which he had stated that as per information received, the deceased had died out of poisoning administered by the appellants. The FIR has been proved as Ext.-5.

7. PW4 is a neighbour of the informant. In his examination, he had however stated that appellant no. 2 had touched the feet of the informant - PW3 and had confessed his guilt.

8. PW5 is a neighbour of the matrimonial house who had however stated that there was a happy married life. He had however stated that when he had asked the appellant no. 2 what had happened, he had replied that he did not know what had happened.

9. PW6 is a neighbour of the appellants who had reiterated that the appellant no. 2 and the deceased were living a happy married life. He has also stated that when he had asked the appellant no. 2 regarding the incident, he had replied that nothing had happened.

10. PW7 is a neighbour of the appellants who had also reiterated that the appellant no.2 and the deceased were leading a happy married life. He had also stated that he could see blue froth coming out from the mouth of the deceased who was lying near the bathroom and in the bathroom there was a Harpic bottle. He had also stated that the deceased was of stubborn nature.

11. PW8 is the I.O. who had stated that appellant no. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. which was proved as