The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - This appeal assails from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in case No. S.T. (Type-1) 06 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Mr. PK Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondent.

3. The prosecution case was set in motion with the complaint lodged by one Bappa Malakar alleging that, on 04.11.2015 at night his younger sister, namely, Mamata Malakar (26 years) was killed by the appellants, namely, Rajib Malakar (husband), Smt. Sukriti Malakar (mother-in-law) and Sri Raju Malakar (brother-in-law of the deceased), by way of assaulting, and thereafter, they hanged her body and that at around 8.00 a.m. on 05.11.2015, they informed him over telephone that Mamata was sick.

4. On receipt of the complaint (Exhibit-1), the Officer-in-Charge of Dharmanagar Women police station had registered a case against the appellants under FIR No. 107 of 2015 under Section 302 /34 of the IPC on 05.11.2015 at 1358 hours. Being endorsed, the investigating officer, namely, Smt. Bandana Choudhury (WSI) visited the place of occurrence, prepared handsketch map and index, recorded the statement of the available witnesses, seized one mobile alongwith SIM-card from the house of Rajib Malakar, the appellant no.1, and further seized samples of liver, spleen, stomach of the deceased as well as her wearing apparels. The samples were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. She also collected the report and after being prima facie satisfied submitted charge-sheet against 3 accused persons, the appellants herein.

5. With the commencement of trial, charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 302 /201 read with Section 34 of the IPC that they with common intention had committed murder of Mamata Malakar, wife of Sri Rajib Malakar, appellant no.1, and further with the intention to suppress their common intention, they informed the complainant that his sister was suffering from illness, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution had examined 18 (eighteen) witnesses and introduced as many as 13 (thirteen) documents including the FIR in prescribed format (Exhibit-9) and (Exhibit 1 and 1/1). After completion of recording of prosecution evidences, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where they reiterated their plea of their innocence. After hearing argument of both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty of committing offences, as narrated above, and sentenced them, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court.

7. Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court suffers from serious illegality. According to learned senior counsel, the findings returned by the learned trial Judge were passed merely upon conj