Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions can sustain a murder conviction, provided they form a complete chain, even without eyewitness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel and Amicus Curiae for the appellant, assisted by Mr. P. K. Medhi, learned counsel. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Sessions Case No. 8(NL)/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month, on account of the appellant killing his wife with a dao.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR dated 07.08.2017 has been submitted to the In-Charge, Silonibari Out-post by Prosecution Witness No.1 (PW-1), who is the brother of his deceased sister. The FIR states that the deceased was his elder sister and that she had been killed by her husband (appellant) around 2 am on 06.08.2017, where her neck was slit with a dao. Pursuant to the FIR, North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 1019/2017 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered.

4. The Investigating Officer (PW-12) thereafter took up the investigation and on completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet, having found sufficient evidence under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant for having killed his wife.

5. On the case being committed to the learned Trial Court for trial, charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 13 (thirteen) Prosecution Witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had killed his wife with a dao, by cutting her neck inside their house. The learned Trial Court thereafter convicted the appellant and sentenced him accordingly, as stated in the earlier paragraphs.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which the appellant had been found guilty by the learned Trial Court, does not form a complete chain and as such, conviction, on the basis of an incomplete circumstantial evidence, is not sustainable in law.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the weapon (dao), which was allegedly used for killing the deceased, had not been produced in Court. Even in the respect, there is a contradiction between the place of seizure of the dao, as can be seen from the evidence of PW Nos. 5 & 12. Further, the dao was not sent to the FSL for examination and no blood stain was found on the dao. He accordingly submits that when the dao has not been properly seized and produced before the Court, conviction of the appellant was not sustainable.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that conviction cannot be made solely on the basis of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, without corroborative evidence. He also submits that the house, in which the deceased was killed, was occupied by the appellant and their two children, the elder child is being 14 years of age. However, the appellant's children had not been made witnesses, nor their statement being recorded by the learned Trial Court. He also submits that there was no eye witness to the incident, inasmuch as, the mother (PW-3) and father (PW-4) lived in a different house, but within the same compound where the house of the appell