In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion alone cannot suffice for conviction.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

S.K. Medhi, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali in Sessions Case No. 44/2019 registered under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS] with R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The incident is one of fratricide whereby the allegation is against the appellant of killing his own brother.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 30.10.2018 by one Bhabananda Tanti (PW-2), who is the brother of both the appellant and the deceased. He had narrated that on the previous day, i.e., 29.10.2018 at about 9 pm, there was a quarrel on some domestic matter which led to attack by the appellant on his brother in the quarters with an axe resulting in grievous injury whereby the deceased had died instantaneously. The said Ejahar was registered as Biswanath P.S. Case No. 266/2018 under Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS] and investigation was done in which the statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded, the sketch map prepared, post-mortem done, and all other steps were taken leading to laying of the Charge Sheet. The charge was accordingly framed, which was explained to the appellant and on its denial, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 Nos. of witnesses.

4. PW-1 is the mother of both the deceased and the appellant, who had deposed that the appellant and the deceased were staying in the Company’s house while she was staying at the house of Bhabananda (PW-2) which was at a little distance. She got the information from her grandson, Biraj Tanti (PW-3), who had gone to the place of occurrence. She had deposed of the injury caused on the neck of the deceased by an axe. In her cross-examination, she had stated that the appellant and the deceased used to live together in a pucca house and had also clarified that she did not know who and how the deceased was killed and at that time, her grandson was not at the place of occurrence. Though he said that the appellant had killed the deceased, he did not witness the incident.

5. PW-2 is the informant, Bhabananda Tanti, who had deposed that he and his mother were residing in the kutcha house which was about 200 meters from the pucca house in which the appellant and the deceased were residing. He had stated that while going out to leave his sister to Tangla, he had received information through telephone regarding the incident and accordingly, had come to the place of occurrence. He had also deposed about an extrajudicial confession made by the appellant regarding his involvement. In his cross- examination, he had deposed that the son of the deceased used to stay with him and his mother and police had arrived before his arrival at the place of occurrence. With regard to the extrajudicial confession, a suggestion was given regarding contradiction of such statement made before I.O. which he had denied.

6. PW-3 is the son of the deceased, who was a minor at the time of the occurrence and even at the time of adducing evidence. He had deposed that he was not present at the time of the incident and when he had come in the morning, he learnt about the incident. In his cross-examination, he had clarified that he had gone to his grandmother’s house in the previous evening and at that time there was no quarrel. However, when he had come back the next morning, he found the appellant brushing his teeth and thereafter, also found the body of the deceased inside the house.

7. PW-4 is the Chowkidar of the Line, who had also deposed about extrajudicial confession made by the appellant which was however made after the police had come. He also deposed that the appellant had produced an axe. In the cross-examination, he had stated that two families live in one quarter and Mohikanta Tanti (PW-5) lives in the adjacent part. The suggestion towards contradicting the deposi