A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [Corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] against the judgment dated 22.03.2023 and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Majuli in Session Case No.07/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [Corresponding to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 26.02.2022 by one Dashiram Pegu, who is the father of the deceased. It was stated that on the previous day, i.e., 25.02.2022, the deceased, who was his son, had gone to Selek village in the evening to pay wages to the labourers. While returning, he was stopped by a group of unknown youths who assaulted him in various parts of his body including his head and left him lying on the road. His son could eventually manage to find shelter in a house and sent information. As his condition was serious, he was taken to Jorhat and thereafter to Dibrugarh.

3. The Ejahar was accordingly registered as Garamur PS Case No. 8 of 2022 under Section 3 4 1/325/34 IPC [Corresponding to Sections 126 /117/3(5) of bns ]. Subsequently, on 22.02.2022, Section 3 02 IPC [Corresponding to Sections 103 of bns ] was added. The investigation was accordingly started, and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had visited the place of occurrence, recorded statements, prepared sketch maps, made seizures, sending the body for post- mortem examination and after completion of all the formalities, had laid the Charge Sheet. The charge was accordingly framed under Sections 120B, 341 and 302 of the IPC [Corresponding to Sections 61 /126/103 of bns ] and on denial of the same, the trial had begun in which, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 15 numbers of witnesses. It may be mentioned that the charges were framed against three accused persons, namely, Ajay Kuli (appellant), Ram Kuli and Moni Doley Pegu. However, the other two accused persons were acquitted and the appellant was acquitted under Section 120B and 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [Corresponding to Sections 61 and 126 of bns ] but convicted under Section 3 02 IPC [Corresponding to Section 103 of bns ].

4. PW 1 is one Smt. Pudoi Pegu. She deposed that she does not know the informant and she does not know anything about the occurrence. Accordingly, cross-examination was declined.

5. PW 2 is the informant of the present case and he is the father of the victim/deceased. He deposed that the deceased Niranjan Pegu is his eldest son who was a contractor. On the day of the occurrence, he had gone to pay the wages of the labourers and thereafter he did not return. On the next day, they received his dead body. He had heard that the dead body of his son was found in a house at Selek village. He did not go to the place of occurrence. He heard that his son/deceased had sustained sharp cut injuries on his head. Subsequently, the dead body of his son was taken to AMCH Dibrugarh for post mortem. He proved the Ejahar as Ext. P/1. In his cross-examination, PW/2 stated that the place of occurrence is about 4 to 5 km away from his house. He heard about the occurrence at about 9:30 p.m. and he was informed that his son was found lying a