the prosecution. The chain of circumstances is not complete. Each circumstance ought to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt which the prosecution has failed to prove. The cricket bat seized in connection with this case was not produced before the Court. The medical officer who conducted the autopsy was not shown the weapon of offence to affirm that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by the wooden bat. The appellant was inebribiated when the extra judicial confession was made and this has been affirmed by the I.O. The other son of the deceased was not examined as a witness which thwarts the evidence. The appellant was not in fit state of mind and thus the extra judicial confession ought to be rejected. The appellant has relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

i) Kartarey & Ors –vs- The State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 ii) C.K.Raveendran –vs- State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 225 iii) State of Rajasthan –vs- Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC Online SC 984 iv) Subramanya –vs- State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 ARGUMENTS FOR THE STATE

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has laid stress in her argument that there is no missing link and the chain of circumstances is complete. The victim was last seen with the appellant by PW-8. The other witnesses have also testified about the quarrel. The chain of circumstances is complete with the ‘last seen theory’ and the ‘extra judicial confession of the appellant.’ The appellant has failed to discharge his burden mandated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( ‘ Evidence Act’ for short). The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was intoxicated when he made the extra judicial confession cannot be accepted as it was not confronted during cross examination of the witnesses. It cannot be held at this juncture, at the stage of appeal, that the appellant was not in a fit state of mind to make his confession. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted that there is a dent in the evidence owing to the non- production of the weapon of offence to be identified by the medical officer as well as the seizure witnesses.

8. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has relied on the following decisions:

i) State of Rajasthan –vs- Dhool Singh, (2004) 12 SCC 546 ii) State of Rajasthan –vs- Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC Online SC

984

9. Heard Mr. N.Deka, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S.Jahan.

10. To decide the case in its proper perspective, the evidence is re-appreciated.

EVIDENCE

11. The informant as PW-1 has deposed that the incident occurred in the year 2015 at Panch Kilo, Diphu Lumding Road. At about 10’ 0 clock, the co-villagers of the accused informed him from Diphu P.S. that his younger sister Jayanti Ruma has passed away and her body was at Diphu P.S. He called the Diphu PS and he immediately proceeded to Diphu from Howraghat and reached Diphu at about 1 pm. Post-mortem was already performed and after his arrival, the police allowed the body to be taken to the appellant’s house. The appellant and his son informed him that the appellant killed his sister. He then lodged the FIR with the police. He has proved his signature on the FIR as Exhibit-1 (i).

12. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that he has not written the FIR. It was not read over to him. He could not recall the exact date of the incident. The police recorded his statement after he reached the police station. He did not know the person who informed him about the incident. He did not know if there was any quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. The appellant admitted in presence of his aunt and his son, that the appellant killed his wife ( deceased ). He has also admitted that both the deceased and the appellant used to consume alcohol.

13. Longi Kro has deposed as PW-2 that the informant is not known to him whereas the accused and the deceased are known to him. On the day of th