Mir Alfaz Ali JUDGMENT
Mir Alfaz Ali, J.
1. The appellant Baikuntha Das was convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat u/s. 302 IPC in Sessions Case No. 154(J-J)/2013 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution case, on 04-09-2013, at about 6.30 in the morning, when the victim Nitul Das was going to shop by riding his motorcycle, the appellant Baikuntha Das restrained him in front of his house and assaulted with a sharp weapon causing serious injuries. Having sustained injuries, when the victim fell down, the accused appellant Baikuntha Das left the place by taking away the gold chain and two rings from the victim. Immediately, with the help of the villagers, the victim was shifted to Jorhat Civil Hospital, where he was declared dead. FIR (Ext-1) was lodged by PW 1, the younger brother of the deceased, on the basis of which, police registered a case. In course of investigation, police arrested the accused, and seized a dao alleged to be weapon of offence vide Ext. 3, seizure list. Inquest report Ext- 2 was prepared by Executive Magistrate B.D. Das and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
3. PW 12, Dr. Tapan Das, who conducted the post mortem examination found the following injuries on the body of the victim:-
"1. A chop injury of size 14 X 1 cm X brain deep present on the occipital part of the head upper part placed horizontally, 20 cm form the prominence of the 7th cervical spine. The scalp, skull, menings and brain are found cut.
2. A chop injury of size 8 x 1.55 cm x bone deep present on the occipital part of the head. 1 cm below injury No. 1 and parallel to it.
3. A chop injury of size 4 x 8 cm c scalp deep present on the occipital area of the head 7 cm below and parallel to injury No. 1."
4. On completion of investigation charge-sheet (Ext-9) was laid against the appellant u/s. 302/379 IPC and eventually the appellant stood trial.
5. During trial, the appellant pleaded innocence and denied charges. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to substantiate the charge.
6. We have heard Ms. P.B. Bordoloi, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
7. PW 12, the doctor opined that death of the victim was due to comma resulting from chop injuries sustained over the head, which were ante mortem and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. The homicidal death of the deceased was, in fact, not disputed. The only question to be decided is, who caused the injuries leading to the death of the deceased Nitul. Apparently, there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the learned trial court relying on the following circumstances recorded the conviction of the appellant:-
(i) After the occurrence the appellant surrendered before the police at the police station and handed over a dao which was allegedly used in the commission of offence.
(ii) The accused made a confession in the police station before PW 9, 10, 11 as well as PW 2.
(iii) There was illicit relationship between the victim and the wife of the appellant
(iv) Oral dying declaration made by the deceased before PW 4.
8. It is settled position of law that in a criminal case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances are required to be proved solidly beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances should be such, that there should not be any missing link and it should lead only and only to the conclusion, consistent with the guilt of the accused. The Apex C........