When relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events consistent only with the guilt of the accused. If multiple plausible hypotheses exist, the failure to exclude all but one requires the court to grant the accused the benefit of doubt.

Judgment :

Pranjal Das, J.

Heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. J. Saikia.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred from jail by the convict appellant Md. Taher Ali against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, whereby the appellant as accused was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo SI for 6(six) months. He was given the benefit of set off.

3. On 29-06-2013, one Rahman Ali lodged an ejahar before the Sapmari Police Outpost under Udalguri Police Station, stating that on the same day around 7.30 am, accused No. 1 mentioned in the appeal, namely Taher Ali, killed his own mother Tara Bhanu by hacking her with an axe on the instigation of accused No.2 Tui Bhanu, who was his wife. It was further stated that there was a quarrel between the Tui Bhanu and the deceased Tara Bhanu from before. On the basis of the Ajahar, Sapmari OP GD No. 425, dated 29-06-2013 was made and forwarded to the Udalguri Police Station for registration of case whereupon Udalguri P.S. Case No. 75 of 2013 was registered on the same day under section 302 IPC.

4. Investigation was conducted and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet by way of C.S. No. 42 dated 30-06-2016 was submitted sending up Taher Ali for facing trial under section 302 IPC. However, his wife Tui Bhanu was not sent up for trial on the ground that no incriminating materials were found against her. Subsequently, after completion of the usual formalities, the learned trial court framed charge against the convict appellant under section 302 , vide order dated 10-11-2016. The charge being denied by the appellant led to commencement of the trial.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 10(ten) witnesses, including MO and IO. After the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC, the defence did not lead any evidence. Upon completion of trial, the appellant as accused was convicted and sentenced as already mentioned above and aggrieved by the same, he has preferred the instant appeal.

6. The TCR in original was called for and received.

7. Mr. Talukdar, the learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the chain of circumstances against the accused during the trial was not completed and therefore, the judgment is erroneous and liable to be interfered with in appeal. He also submits that the axe stated to be the weapon of offence was not sent for forensic examination. It is also submitted that the wife of the appellant was not found and she is the missing link. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned judgment being erroneous in law and facts may be set aside by allowing this appeal.

8. On the other hand, Ms. Bhuyan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that Exhibit-4 is the seizure list pertaining to the axe and that there is no missing link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and that the circumstances cogently proved the complexity of the appellant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the incident was preceded by a quarrel which has been proved by the testimony of the witnesses. Summing up her submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and that the sa