The absence of direct evidence and incomplete circumstantial proof precludes conviction, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for conclusive evidence in a criminal trial.

Judgment :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

The present appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 103/2017 (GR Case No. 3164/2016) under Sections 302 /201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE [corresponding to Sections 103 /238 BNS ], thereby sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE [corresponding to Section 103 BNS ], to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default, further imprisonment for three months and also to undergo RI for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in default further imprisonment for three months under Section 201 INDIAN PENAL CODE [corresponding to Section 238 BNS ]. The same involves the death of the minor son of the informant.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by the mother of the deceased as PW2 on 06.12.2016. It has been alleged in the said Ejahar that on the previous day i.e., 05.12.2016, at about 03:00 PM, the appellant had called the 8 year old son of the informant, namely Siba Mahanta, to his shop and thereafter strangled him inside the shop and to conceal the body, he had put it in a cardboard box and threw it in the Batahbari field and tried to destroy all the evidence by burning the dead body along with the cardboard box. The said Ejahar was accordingly registered as MRG P.S. Case No. 409/16, under Sections 302 /201 INDIAN PENAL CODE [corresponding to Sections 103 /238 BNS ] and the investigation had begun. The Investigating Officer had visited both the places of occurrence, recorded statements, prepared sketch maps, made seizure, sent the remains of the body for post-mortem examination and after completion of all the formalities, had laid the Charge Sheet.

3. Based on the above, two charges were leveled against the appellant, namely under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 and Section 238 BNS ] and on denial, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 nos. of PWs. Thereafter, two Court Witnesses (CW) were also examined.

4. The ADC, Nagaon, who had done the inquest was examined as PW1. He had deposed that on 06.12.2016, while he was posted as Circle Officer cum Executive Magistrate at Morigaon, had conducted the inquest in the Morigaon Civil Hospital. He had seen a burned skeleton of the deceased who was identified by the mother on the basis of the clothes of the deceased. The Inquest Report was proved as Exhibit 1. In his cross- examination, however, he had stated that he did not see the clothes of the deceased.

5. The informant, who is the mother of the deceased, was examined as PW2. She had stated that the appellant had a shop near her house and runs business of Xerox, Computer Photo Printing and other activities. During the time of the incident, the deceased son was about 6 years old. It has been stated that in the year 2015, the husband of PW1 had passed away and after his death, the appellant started to induce her by various means. The informant also stated of having three children and of thwarting the persu