The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on circumstantial evidence demonstrating a complete and unbroken chain leading to the appellant's guilt.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Budi Habung, J.

The present jail appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

2. The facts leading to the conviction of the accused and the filing of the present jail appeal are that on 27.10.2021, PW-4, Shri Dilip Khaduju, lodged a written FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bhalukpong Police Station, stating that he came to know from Shri Sitow Jebisow, Gaon Burah (PW-3), that Lukhi Das (the deceased), who was married to Adungfa Jebisow (the accused), was found dead in the rented house. Accordingly, they went to the house and saw the dead body of the deceased. Her hair had been cut, and her entire body appeared bluish due to assault with an iron rod, etc. Injury marks were also seen on the right side of her face. They suspected that she had been murdered by her husband, who had earlier told the owner of the rented house (PW-3) that his wife had fled away.

3. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 302 of IPC, investigated into, and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for commission of offence punishable under section 302 IPC.

4. To bring home to the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses and also relied upon some document duly proved during the course of the trial. After completion of prosecution evidences, the accused was examined and his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused although did not fully and directly admit his guilt but did not plead innocent either. The accused examined two defense witnesses including himself.

5. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was found guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2022, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- only, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the present jail appeal has been filed.

6. We have heard Mr. Jumgam Jini, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Token Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

7. The learned legal Aid counsel for the appellant contended that there is no eye-witness to the incident, and thus, the conviction of the accused is based purely on suspicion. He further contended that the extra judicial confession and admission during his examination under 313 Cr.P.C based on which the appellant has been convicted is a weak piece of evidence. He further contended that in the instant case the motive of a convict is not conclusively proved. He further contended that the absence of eye-witness makes the prosecution case doubtful. Therefore; benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused.

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution case rest entirely on circumstantial evidence; namely: that the appellant and the deceased being