The court ruled that reliance on police confessions for conviction is barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, necessitating complete circumstantial evidence for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. R. A. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel/APP, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC-2), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 135(T)/2023, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months, for having murdered his wife.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Inspector Jyotish Goyary (Officer- in-Charge of Doomdooma P.S., Tinsukia), had submitted an FIR dated 05.06.2023 to the effect that on 05.06.2023 at around 8 AM, he heard that his elder sister Juliana Govin had died. On reaching his elder sister’s house, he found the dead body of his elder sister and also noticed injuries on different parts of her body and when he asked his brother-in-law, i.e., the appellant, the appellant stated that he had beaten up the deceased with his hands and sticks and upon bringing her home, she had died. Pursuant to the FIR, Doomdooma P.S. Case No. 154/2023 under Section 302 IPC was registered.

4. After investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer (PW-6) submitted the charge sheet under Section 302 of the IPC, on finding a prima facie case of murder against the appellant.

5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined six Prosecution Witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the prosecution had been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had murdered his wife. The above finding had been made by the learned Trial Court, in view of the Investigating Officer having stated that the appellant was present with the deceased and as the appellant had taken the deceased to hospital, after he had assaulted her with the branch of a tree. Further, the appellant had stated in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC that his wife died due to a fall under the influence of liquor, which proved the fact that the appellant had assaulted his wife, who died due to the assault. The learned Trial Court thereafter convicted the appellant and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC.

7. The Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence adduced by the learned Trial Court to prove that the appellant had murdered his wife. As such, the appellant should be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC.

8. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) is to the effect that the appellant had confessed to PW-6 that he had assaulted his wife (deceased) with the branch of a tree and had taken his wife to the hospital. Further, the appellant had, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, stated that his wife had fallen under the influence of liquor. When the evidence of PW-6 is juxtaposed with the explanation given by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC that his wife had died due to a fall under the influence of liquor, the same proved the involvement of the appellant in the death of his wife, inasmuch, the presence of the appellant at the time of death of the deceased, had been proved. Thus, in the absence of any explanation given by the appellant with regard to how his wife had died, as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the non-explanation of the cause of death of his wif