The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the accused to provide a cogent explanation for the incriminating circumstances, which he failed to do.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail under Section 302 /201 IPC (corresponding to Sections 103 /238 BNS ) against the judgment and order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 210/2018; sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d SI for 06 months under Section 302 IPC (corresponding to Section 103 BNS ). RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- i/d SI for 2 months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 25.06.2018 by one Jiban Borah, who was examined as PW 1. He had alleged that his sister was killed on the previous night by the appellant who is her son. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the FIR was registered leading to Tezpur PS case number 1326/2018 under Sections 302 /201 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 103 /238 BNS ) and the investigation had begun in which the police had arrested the appellant, the murder weapon was seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the beheaded body as well as the severed head were recovered and sent for post-mortem after inquest was done and after completion of all the other formalities, the charge sheet was laid. The charges were accordingly framed against the appellant under Sections 302 /201 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 103 /238 BNS ) and on its denial, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 nos. of prosecution witnesses. The defence had also adduced one witness.

3. PW 1 is the informant who had deposed that PW 3 who is a neighbour of the appellant's house had informed regarding a quarrel of the deceased and the appellant on the previous evening and at about 4.30 am, he had seen the appellant throwing garbage in the well and he had also not seen the deceased going out for morning walk which she usually did. On receipt of such information, the informant had come to the residence of the appellant with his wife and the Gaonburah was also informed who had called for the police. Thereafter, on arrival of the police, the accused, who was inside the house by bolting his door had come out with a khukri and had said that with the said khukri, he had killed his mother and threw the dead body in the well. The police had accordingly recovered the beheaded body of the deceased and subsequently the severed head from a nearby pit.

4. The FIR was proved as Ext.-1 and he is also a witness to the seizure of the kukri and the seizure list was proved as Ext.- 2 and the khukri as material Ext.-1. He is also a witness to the Inquest Report where he had put his signature. PW 1 was cross-examined in which he had stated of noticing blood stain near the door but not inside the house. He had also stated of not remembering whether the police had seized any blood stained cloths from the house of the appellant. Questions were put to him regarding certain land dispute with the PW 3 which the PW 1 had refuted. It has however come on record that the PW 1 did not have any visiting or talking terms with the deceased since the last about 7 years.

5. PW 2 is the wife of PW 1 who had deposed that on 25.06.2018 at about 6:00 am, PW 3 had come to their house and informed o