Circumstantial evidence, coupled with a lack of alibi or credible explanation from the appellant, sufficiently establishes guilt in a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. The appellant has put to challenge the judgment dated 08.12.2020, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in Sessions Case No.18/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

3. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that there is no eye witness to the murder of the appellant’s wife. She also submits that there is no circumstantial evidence to prove that the appellant had killed his wife with a sharp weapon, even though the appellant had surrendered before the police with a dao. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the weapon (dao) that had been seized by the police from the appellant had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and there was no bloodstain on the dao. She also submits that in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant had given an explanation to the last question, to the effect that the informant (PW-1), the step-brother of the deceased, had killed the deceased, as they were both claiming the property of their mother. She submits that the fact that the informant and the deceased were having a property dispute is also reflected in the evidence of PW-4 in his cross-examination, wherein he has stated as follows:-

“There was dispute among Dilbar, Pashan and Sabura’s mother over landed properties”

4. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the mothers of the informant and the deceased are different, while they share the same father. The learned Amicus Curiae thus submits that the circumstantial evidence does not form a complete chain for conviction of the appellant by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the impugned judgment should be set aside.

5. Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the appellant had surrendered himself before the police in the police station immediately after the incident, along with the weapon that he used for cutting her. She submits that though the dao had not been sent for forensic examination, inasmuch as, there was no bloodstain on the dao, the said weapon had been exhibited during trial as Material Exhibit No.1. She submits that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was not at the place of occurrence on the night of the murder and in the absence of any explanation by the appellant, with regard to the cause of death of the deceased under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the same would amount to another link in the circumstantial evidence, pointing towards the guilt of the appellant.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1, who is the step brother of the deceased, filed an FIR dated 18.06.2018 around 10 p.m before the O/C of the Bilasipara Police Station, stating that between 9-9:30 p.m on 17.06.2018, the appellant had caused grievous injury to his sister by hitting her with the dao, during the absence of his mother from the house. Though his sister was admitted to the Bilasipara Civil Hospital in an injured condition, she was referred to Kokrajhar Civil Hospital for better treatment. However, she died on the way to Kokrajhar. Pursuant to