The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession and the last seen theory, despite the appellant's claims of intoxication.

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in connection with Sessions Case No. 37/2016, convicting Sri Amrit Terang (hereinafter referred to as the appellant or the accused) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short ‘IPC’) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-with default clause.

2 The genesis of the case was that on 26.04.2015 at about 7 pm, a quarrel broke out between Smti Jayanti Ruma Teronpi (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘deceased’ or the victim) and thereafter the appellant attacked the deceased with a wooden bat and committed her murder. The victim’s brother Sri Dipak Ruma ( in short ‘informant’) received this information from a person named Sri Lanki Kro and he immediately went to Diphu on the following day on 27.04.2015 and learnt about the incident which occurred at Panch Kilo, Diphu Lumding Road.

3. The investigating officer (‘I/O’ for short) embarked upon the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and forwarded the body for autopsy. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant.

4. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

5. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 8 witnesses and the defence cross examined the witnesses to refute the charges. On the incriminating evidence projected by the prosecution witnesses, several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’ for short). The answers of the appellant, however, appears to be evasive. The appellant has denied all the incriminating circumstances against him as ‘this is false’. To the question No.9, the appellant has replied that he did not kill his wife, but somebody else committed her murder. The appellant did not tender any evidence in defence.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANTS

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the witnesses starting from PW-1 to PW-5 can be termed as hearsay evidence which is not admissible. The evidence of PW-8 is based on extra judicial confession which was not conclusively proved by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances is not complete. Each circumstance ought to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt which the prosecution has failed to prove. The cricket bat seized in connection with this case was not produced before the Court. The medical officer who conducted the autopsy was not shown the weapon of offence to affirm that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by the wooden bat. The appellant was inebribiated when the extra judicial confession was made and this has been affirmed by the I.O. The other son of the deceased was not examined as a witness which thwarts the evidence. The appellant was not in fit state of mind and thus the extra judicial confession ought to be rejected. The appellant has relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

i) Kartarey & Ors vs. The State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172

ii) C.K.Raveendran –vs- State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 225

iii) State of Rajasthan –vs- Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC Online SC 984

iv) Subramanya –vs- State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255

ARGUMENTS FOR THE STATE

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has laid stress in her argument that there is no missing link and the chain of circumstances is complete. The victim was last seen with the appellant by PW-8. The other witnesses have also testified about the quarrel. The chain of circumstances is complete with the ‘last seen theory’ and the ‘extra judicial confession of the appellant.’ The appellant has failed to discharge his burden mandated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( ‘ Evidence A