In cases of crimes committed within a private residence, while the prosecution holds the initial burden, the occupants must provide a cogent explanation for the death under the Evidence Act. Failure to do so, combined with strong circumstantial proximity, supports a conviction for murder.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Sessions Case no. T1/06/2019. By the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2025, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34, , and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 (six) months.

Facts of the case:

3. On 02.10.2018, an FIR had been lodged by the informant informing the Officer-in-charge of Salakati Police Outpost that his wife had informed him over the telephone that a quarrel had started at their rented house amongst the tenants. The informant had immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of one of the tenants inside the room. He suspected that the other tenants involved in the quarrel had caused the death of the deceased. The information was thereafter forwarded to the Kokrajhar Police Station, and accordingly, Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 490/2018 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered, and an investigation was undertaken.

4. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the three appellants herein, who were named as the accused, and the case culminated in Sessions Case No. 6/2019 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar and charges were framed on 01.02.2019.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited several documents. On closure of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC; however, they did not produce any evidence in defence. The point for determination framed by the learned Trial Court was as follows:-

“i) Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, murdered the deceased Md. Shakil by sharp weapon?”

6. After hearing the arguments made on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the accused, who are also the three appellants herein, had committed an offense under Section 302/34 of the IPC, and convicted them as already stated in the foregoing paragraphs.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence only. He has submitted that in such circumstances, the prosecution in the present case had failed to prove a complete chain of events and therefore, the findings of the learned Trial Court deserve interference. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution and cannot be subject to probabilities. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the proceedings in the present case fail to satisfy the test of the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence.

8. He has stressed that it is an admitted position that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He has further submitted that the failure to ensure the forensic e