JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 and 201 IPC and the order of sentence of R.I for life, both dated 24.04.2010, in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad.

2. The appellant is the husband of the deceased lady namely, Surajmani Manjiyan. On 25.08.2006, the fateful day, he proceeded for his home with his wife from his in-laws'' place (sasural), however, in the evening at about 5 p.m his father informed the informant namely, Bodi Manjhi that his daughter has not reached home. The informant has stated that thereafter he started search for his daughter and on 27.08.2006 dead body of his daughter was found floating in the well of one Durjan Manjhi. The police was given information and on the basis of fardbeyan of Bodi Manjhi recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police at the house of Bodi Manjhi at about 13.30 hrs. on 27.08.2006, Baliapur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2006 was registered under section 302/201/120-B IPC against the accused-appellant.

3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 18 witnesses to prove the charge under section 302/201 IPC framed against the accused-appellant vide order dated 31.05.2007. The informant has been examined as P.W.16 and Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who has conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Surajmani Manjiyan is P.W.17. Two brothers of the deceased namely, Mantosh Murmu and Sujit Murmu were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5 respectively. The prosecution has also examined mother of the deceased as P.W.14. These witnesses have been examined to prove the last-seen-together circumstance against the accused-appellant.

4. On the basis of the evidences laid before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that it was the accused and none else who has committed murder of Surajmani Manjiyan.

5. Two-Fold submissions have been made by Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant; (i) only the last-seen-together evidence is not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances so as to establish guilt of an accused, and (ii) suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of the legal evidence to convict the accused for the serious offence under section 302 IPC. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on decisions in " Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 " and " State through C.B.I. Vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya, (2011) AIR SC 1017 ".

6. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP has, however, submitted that the appellant-husband who started for his home with his wife has not offered any plausible explanation in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding what happened next after he was seen lastly in the company of his wife, who has been found dead. The learned APP referring to the decision in " Dilip Mallick Vs. State of West Bengal, (2017) 12 SCC 727 " submitted that on the basis of the proved circumstance that the appellant was last seen in the company of his wife, his conviction under section 302 IPC is proper and legal.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph no.17 of the judgment dated 24.04.2010 has taken note of the following circumstances, which according to him proved the guilt of the appellant:

(i) Deceased was with the accused and both of them have proceeded for his matrimonial house on 25-8-06.

(ii) On 25-8-06 at evening hour informant has been informed that deceased has not been reached at her place though accused reached.

(iii) On 27-8-06 dead body of the deceased was found in a well.

(iv) In P.M report it reveals that deceased was strangulated by her Saree.

(v) P.M report also establishes that death was occurred at 48 hours before that establishes this fact that she was murdered on 25-8-06 and silence of the accused with respect to his wife goes against him.

8. At the outset, we intend to record that after referring to the