The prosecution must conclusively prove the accused's presence at the crime scene; absence of such proof necessitates acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

1. The appellant was charged under S.302 of the IPC for committing murder of his wife and by the judgment dated 23.06.2015 delivered in case No. ST 46(ST / S) of 2014 by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia he has been convicted for committing the said offence. The said judgment and the consequential order of sentence are under challenge in this appeal.

2. The first information report was lodged to the officer - in - charge of Manubazar P.S. by one Ratan Sarkar (PW11). That information was registered as Manubazar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2012 under S.302/34 of the IPC. PW11, Ratan Sarkar has alleged that his niece namely, Reshmi Datta (Nama) was married to the appellant. In their wedlock, one male child was born. On unlawful demand, his niece was subjected to physical and mental torture. His niece visited his house 7-8 days prior to her death. At that time, she had complained that in their rented house in every night she was subjected to torture, even the appellant had tried to strangulate her. After having the news of death, PW11 lodged the information.

3. After the said case was registered, investigation ensued and on completion of investigation, police report under S.173(2) of the CrPC was filed but since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur (as it then was) and after bifurcation of the judicial districts, the said case was transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.

4. Having taken the cognizance, the Sessions Judge framed the charge, as stated, under S.302 of the IPC and the appellant pleaded innocence and claimed for trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution, in all, examined 17 witnesses and introduced 4 documentary evidence including the postmortem report (Exbt.P3) and the inquest report (Exbt.P4). After the appellant was examined under S.313 CrPC, to establish his specific plea of alibi, the appellant adduced one witness.

5. Having appreciated the evidence, the trial court has observed that the accused was found on the previous day of the incident as well as in the evening in his rented house by the witnesses and he alone committed the offence of murder of his wife and none else.

6. According to the trial court, there is a chain of circumstances and from the circumstances it has been cogently established that the appellant committed the murder of his wife, the niece of the informant and hence the appellant has been convicted. Pursuant to the said conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. It has been observed that the period of detention undergone by the appellant has been directed to be set off in terms of S.428 CrPC.

7. Mr. PK Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has commenced his submissions by stating that the judgment of conviction is perverse as the plea of alibi, as established by the appellant, has not been appreciated. He has further submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant. Simply on the basis of conjecture, the said conviction has been returned.

8. Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel has submitted that the prosecution's basic plank is that the appellant was “last seen” with the deceased. For that matter, Mr. Biswas has taken this Court to the principal witnesses, such as PWs 5 & 6. According to M