The prosecution must establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction, where mere suspicion cannot suffice, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

M. Choudhury, J

1. This criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘the CrPC’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia at Tinsukia in Sessions Case no. 46[T]/2010.

2. The two accused persons, namely, [i] Binu Mahato [the present accused- appellant] and [ii] Mania Munda faced the trial in Sessions Case no. 46[T]/2010 for charges framed for the offences under Section 448 and Section 302 , read with Section 34 , of the INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC]. On conclusion of the trial, the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia found both the accused persons guilty of the offence under Section 302 , IPC read with Section 34 , IPC. The accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 448 , IPC read with Section 34 , IPC on the ground that the said charge was not proved. For finding them guilty for the offences under Section 302 , IPC read with Section 34 , IPC, the two accused persons including the present appellant, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. It has been ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the accused persons shall be set-off from the period of imprisonment in terms of Section 428 , CrPC.

3. The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In- Charge, Tinsukia Sadar Police Station on 09.01.2008 by one Dilip Sonowal [P.W.1] stating about an incident which occurred in the house of one Dalima Dutta at Bordoloi Nagar, Tinsukia at around 02-30 p.m. on 09.01.2008. In the FIR, the informant - P.W.1 had inter alia mentioned that at around 02-30 p.m. on 09.01.2008, he came to learn telephonically from neighbours of Dalima Dutta, who was his elder sister, that an untoward incident had taken place in her house. Then, the informant went to the house of Dalima Dutta immediately from his office and going there, he saw a gathering of neighbours of his sister in front of the house of his sister. He saw his elder sister, Dalima Dutta lying in a pool of blood in the verandah of her house. The informant had then taken Dalima Dutta to Tinsukia Civil Hospital, with the assistance of neighbours, wherein she was given preliminary treatment. The doctors at Tinsukia Civil Hospital then referred her to Brahmaputra Nursing Home, Dibrugarh for better treatment. In the meantime, he received information that Dalima Dutta had already breathed her last. The informant stated that a housemaid by the name of Arati used to do cleaning works in the house of his elder sister from 06-00 a.m. to 08-00 a.m., that is, before Dalima Dutta used to go to school. The informant stated that as per the versions of the neighbours, they saw the housemaid in the verandah of the house of the deceased at the time of the incident and he suspected her involvement in the incident.

4. The FIR was received at the place of occurrence [P.O.] itself, that is, the house of the deceased on 09.01.2008 and the same stood forwarded to the Tinsukia Police Station for registration of a case under proper sections of law. Sashidhar Pasani [P.W.27], the Officer In-Charge of Tinsukia Police Station, had in the meantime, started investigation into the case as its Investigating Officer [I.O.]. On receipt of the FIR, the same was registered as Tinsukia Police Station Case no. 25/2008 under Section 448 and Section 302 of the IPC on 09.01.2008. 5. During the course of investigation, the I.O. suspecting that four accused persons, nam