The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Charaideo, Sonari in Sessions Case No. 266(S-C)/17 (GR Case No.373/17) convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s-302 IPC with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 03.07.2017 by the brother of the deceased (PW-9), wherein it was stated that on the previous day i.e., 02.07.2017 at about 7.00 pm, the appellant had caused the death of his wife by hacking with a sharp weapon and when he had brought the body to the nearby forest to bury the same on 03.07.2017 at about 7.30 am, the public had noticed and accordingly, the appellant was apprehended. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the case was registered and investigation was made in which the statements of the witnesses were recorded, inquest made, sketch maps prepared which led to laying of the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Court had accordingly framed the charges and on denial of the same, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 nos. of prosecution witnesses.

4. PW-1 is a co-villager who had deposed of hearing that the appellant had killed his wife and had gone to bury the body. Upon such news, he had gone to the place of occurrence and saw cut injury on the neck of the deceased. He is a seizure witness so far as Ext- 1 concerning a dao. It may however be mentioned that though the signature of PW-1 appears in Ext.- 2, the same was not proved. It has also been noticed that Ext. 1 pertains to a hoe and not a dao.

5. PW-2 is the President of the VDP who had narrated that one Rajiv had informed him about the incident and he had accordingly gone to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant with a hoe. He has also narrated that the appellant had made an extrajudicial confession. Subsequently, he had gone to the residence of the appellant and found a dao and an axe with hair and blood stuck on those. He has proved Ext. 1 - seizure list. He had however stated that the police did not obtain signature when they had seized the dao and axe. In the cross-examination, PW-2 had stated that the extrajudicial confession was not made before the police.

6. PW-3 is the aunt of the appellant, who had deposed that she was informed by the village Headman and also heard that the public had caught the appellant. She had accordingly gone to the house of the appellant along with the police and found the dao and axe with blood stains. She is a witness to Ext- 2- Seizure List. It may be mentioned that PW-3 had not stated anything about noticing blood in the house.

7. PW-4 is the brother of the appellant who had stated that the VDP Secretary had called him while he was ploughing and told him about the incident. He is a seizure witness so far as Ext. 2 is concerned the spade. In the cross-examination, however, he had stated that the relationship of the accused and the deceased was good.

8. PW- 5 is a co-villager who had narrated that on the said date at about 7.30 am, he had seen the deceased being taken out by the appellant on his shoulder with a spade and he had accordingly informed the fact to the VDP Secretary and police came. He had also deposed about an extrajudicial confession made by the appellant. In the cross-examination, he had, however, mentioned that the paddy field where he was ploughing is about half a kilometre. Ho