Azim Uddin Paramanik vs State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3106 Gua

                                                                        Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010213362015




                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.A./257/2015

           AZIM UDDIN PARAMANIK
           S/O MAJIBAR PARAMANIK, R/O VILL. DHEPDHEPI, P.S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST.
           KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM.


           VERSUS

           STATE OF ASSAM and ANR,

           2:IDRIS ALI AKHAND
            S/O LATE NOOR HUSSAIN
            R/O VILL. DHEPDHEPI
            P.S. FAKIRAGRAM
            DIST. KOKRAJHAR
           ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P DAS
Advocate for the Respondent :

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

Date: 25-11-2021

Judgment and Order (Oral)

(Suman Shyam, J)

Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. Page No.# 2/17

B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State. None has appeared for the

informant in this case.

2. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 21-05-2015 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. 97/2010 convicting the sole appellant

under Section 302 of the IPC on the charge of murdering his wife and sentencing him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 14-01-2019 an ejahar was lodged

before the Officer-in-Charge of Fakiragram Police Station by Md. Idris Ali Akand reporting

that his daughter Musstt. Earon Bibi had been given away in marriage to Md. Azim Uddin

Paramanik of Dhepdhepi village 4/5 years ago as per Muslim Shariat by executing Kabin

Nama. On 11-01-2009 he was informed that Musstt. Earon Bibi had gone missing from

her matrimonial home since the night of 08-01-2009. Since then they had been searching

for her in the nearby houses of kith and kin. On 14-01-2009, at about 07:00 a.m. in the

morning, his son Md. Ayub Hussain saw two dogs digging the sand in the alluvial land

near the river Gangeya and became suspicious. Coming nearer he had dug out with his

hand cloths of the victim. The matter was then informed to the Officer-in-Charge of Sithila

Police Outpost. Later, the sand in that spot was dug out in presence of police and

magistrate and the dead body of his daughter was recovered. The informant had also

stated that he suspected Md. Azim Uddin Pramanik, son of Md. Majibar Pramanik to have

killed his daughter and kept the body buried on the bank of river Gangeya in collusion

with the other accused persons, viz. Md. Jabed Ali Akand, Musstt. Aziran Bibi, Md. Jahan Page No.# 3/17

Miyan and Md. Majibar Pramanik.

4. Based on the FIR dated 14-01-2009 Fakiragram P.S. Case No. 3/2009 was

registered against the five accused persons under Section 302/ 201/ 34 of the IPC and

the matter was taken up for investigation. After completing the investigation, the

Investigating Officer (I/O) had submitted charge-sheet against all the five accused

persons including the present appellant. Accordingly, charges were framed against the

accused persons under Section 302/ 201/ 34 IPC and were read over and explained to

them. However, the accused persons had pleaded not guilty, as a result of which, they

were made to face trial.

5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. To bring home

the charge, the prosecution side had examined as many as 12 witnesses including the

Doctor (PW-10) who had conducted the Postmortem Examination as well as the two I/Os,

viz. PW-11 and PW-12 who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-

sheet. The statements of the accused persons including the present appellant were

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but the defense side did not adduce any evidence.

Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar had passed the impugned

judgment dated 21-05-2015 convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of the IPC

and sentencing him as aforesaid. However, the remaining four co-accused persons were

acquitted by the learned trial court due to want of evidence against them.

6. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire

prosecution case is based on suspicion, conjecture and surmises inasmuch as the

prosecution could not prove the charge framed against the appellant under Section 302 Page No.# 4/17

IPC beyond reasonable doubt. According to Mr. Mahajan there is not even an iota of

evidence to implicate the appellant for committing the murder of his wife and therefore,

his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence awarded by the learned trial court

is wholly untenable in the eye of law and hence, is liable to be set aside by this Court.

7. Responding to the above Ms. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has submitted that

since the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, some of the

circumstances which raises a needle of suspicion against the appellant/ accused person

and eventually had been established by the evidence brought on record by the

prosecution has been rightly relied upon by the learned trial court so as to convict the

appellant. Ms. Bhuyan submits that there is evidence on record to show that the victim

had gone missing from her matrimonial house in the evening of 08-01-2009 and the said

fact was known to the accused. Notwithstanding the same, the accused/ appellant did not

inform the police immediately nor did he take proper steps so as to search for his missing

wife. Coupled with that, submits Ms. Bhuyan, there is evidence to show that the victim

was in the house of the appellant on the day on which she went missing, i.e. 08-01-2009

and there is no explanation from the inmates of the house as to the circumstances under

which the victim had gone missing. The learned Addl. P.P. Assam, therefore, submits that

the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the circumstantial evidence brought on

record by the prosecution side so as to convict the appellant and there is no justifiable

ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 21-05-

2015.

8. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for both the Page No.# 5/17

parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. Since the

appellant's counsel has argued that there is no evidence available on record to sustain the

conviction of the appellant, it would be necessary for us to briefly discuss the evidence

lead by the prosecution side in this case.

9. As noticed above, the informant in this case Md. Idris Ali Akand is the father of the

victim and he was examined by the prosecution side as PW-1. In his deposition before the

court, the PW-1 had stated that there was a love affair between the accused Azim Uddin

Paramanik and his daughter Musstt. Earon Bibi and about 9/10 year ago, their marriage

was solemnized socially. He has deposed that the accused Md. Majibar Paramanik is the

father of the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik, whereas accused Musstt. Aziram Bibi is his

mother. The accused Jabed Ali Akand is the paternal uncle of the accused Azim Uddin

Paramanik whereas accused Jahan Miyan is the maternal uncle of the accused by the

village courtesy. The PW-1 has deposed that his son-in-law Azim Uddin Paramanik used to

stay at Guwahati and work there but his daughter used to stay at home with her father-

in-law and mother-in-law. About 5 years ago, before 'Muharram' his daughter and her

husband Azim Uddin Paramanik had come to their house from Guwahati. Three days after

the 'Muharram' Azirun Bibi came to his house in the morning and told him that his

daughter, taking with her wearing apparels, had gone missing from their home. At that,

he had told Azirun Bibi that his daughter would never go anywhere leaving behind her

child aged about 6/7 years and that she (Azirun) had killed her daughter with the help of

accomplices. Then Azirun went away from their house without saying anything. He had

searched for his daughter but could not find her. Seven days thereafter, his son Ayub Page No.# 6/17

Hussain (PW-5) noticed the dogs digging the sand on the bank of Gangiya river, to the

south of the house of Majibur Paramanik. When his son went near the place and dug out

some sand, he had seen a dead body lying there. His son then came and informed them

about the matter. He had seen that the villagers had arrived there and saw that the dead

body of his daughter had been exhumed. Police took away the dead body. Exhibit- 1 is

the inquest report and Exhibit- 1(1) was his signature. He then lodged an ejahar with the

police station and Exhibit- 2 is the said ejahar carrying his signature.

10. PW-2 Sri Bishadu Ram Barman was the Secretary of the VDP of Dhepdhepi village.

He has deposed before the court that on the night of 08-01-2009, at around 03:00 a.m.

his co-villagers accused Johan Ali came to his house and woke him up from sleep. After

that he had seen accused Azim Uddin Paramanik and Jabed Ali were also present there

along with Johan Ali. The accused Azim Uddin Paramanik told him that on that night, he

had gone to attend a 'Jikir' programme leaving his wife Earon Bibi at home and after

returning from the programme, he did not find his wife at home. He then asked them to

inform the girl's father and the village "Gaonburah" (Village Headman) and also to search

for the girl. At around 06:00 a.m. on 14-01-2009 Jiyar Ali had informed him over phone

that he suspected someone might have buried the dead body of his sister Earon Bibi at

the alluvial soil on the bank of Gangia river. He then went to the Gaonburah Lalit Ch.

Barman's house and informed him about the matter. After that, he being accompanied by

the Gaonburah and other villagers, went to the place of occurrence, i.e. the bank of

Gangia river and saw that the dead body of the deceased Earon Bibi was being dug up by

the police sweeper in presence of a Magistrate. The father-in-law of Earon Bibi had Page No.# 7/17

identified the dead body. The police had prepared the inquest report and took the dead

body away. Exhibit- 1 is the inquest report and Exhibit- 1(2) was his signature. This

witness has also stated that he did not know as to who had killed Earon Bibi. During his

cross-examination, PW- 2 has stated that he did not go near the dead body since it was

stinking and that Azim Uddin used to work in Guwahati but he used to sometime stay at

his home. PW-2 has also deposed that Earon Bibi was mentally ill and Azim Uddin used to

provide her with medical treatment.

11. Sri Lalit Ch. Barman who is the Gaonburah of Dhepdhepi village was examined by

the prosecution as PW-3. This witness has deposed that he knew the accused persons

present in the dock and had identified them. PW-3 has further deposed that on 09-01-

2009 at around 07:00 a.m. the accused Azim Uddin Paramanik and Jahan Uddin came to

his house and informed that on the previous night he had gone to attend a 'Jikir'

programme but after returning from the 'Jikir' he did not find his wife at home. Even after

making search for her she could not be traced out. PW-3 has stated that he had asked

the accused persons to inform the father of the Earon Bibi about the matter and had also

enquired about her in the house of other relatives. In the morning of 14-01-2009, the

VDP Secretary Sri Bisadu Ram Barman (PW-2) came to his house and told him that the

dead body of Earon Bibi had been found in the alluvial land of Gangia river and he should

go there. Then he went to the alluvial land of Gangia river on being accompanied by

some of the co-villagers as well as the PW-2. After reaching there, he had seen the police

person present there along with the sweepers. The police sweepers had exhumed the

dead body and he could identify it to be that of Earon Bibi. Police then took away the Page No.# 8/17

dead boy. He did not know who had killed Earon Bibi. In his cross-examination, PW-3 had

stated that he has heard that Earon Bibi (victim) was mentally ill.

12. PW-4 Md. Jiar Ali Akand is a co-villager and he has stated in his deposition that on

11-01-2009, at around 08:00 a.m., Azim Uddin's mother, viz. Azirun Bibi came to his

house and informed that her daughter-in-law Earon Bibi had disappeared from their

house. She had also informed that Earon Bibi had left behind her younger son at home

and ran away after stealing a pair of anklets of her daughter. On 14-01-2009, at around

06:00 a.m. he had gone towards the river bank to defecate. At that time he had met Md.

Ayub Hussain who had told him that two dogs were digging up the sand in the river bank

and he suspected that the body of Earon Bibi had been buried there after killing her as

her apparel was found on the spot. He then immediately informed the VDP Secretary

about the matter as well as other co-villagers, viz. Akbar Ali and Mamud Ali. Thereafter,

he along with Sri Bisadu Ram Barman and other villagers went to the place of occurrence.

The police, along with the sweeper had also reached the place. Thereafter, the police

sweeper had taken out the dead body of Earon Bibi which he could recognize. The police

then took away the dead body. This witness has also deposed that about 2/3 months

prior to her death Earon Bibi had told him that her husband and her mother-in-law used

to torture her. He used to tell Azirun Bibi not to quarrel. So he suspects that the accused

person had killed Earon Bibi.

13. PW-5 Md. Ayub Hussain is the son of the informant and the brother of the

deceased. PW-5 has deposed that his brother-in-law Azim Uddin used to work as a

plumber at Guwahati. Around three days prior to the incident accused Azim Uddin took Page No.# 9/17

his sister to his house. Four days thereafter, Azim Uddin's mother Azirun Bibi came to their

house one morning and informed that Earon Bibi has been missing for the last three days.

When he had enquired about the whereabouts of his younger sister in the nearby villages

he could not find anything. Three days after receipt of the information about the fact that

his younger sister had gone missing, one morning he went to the alluvial land near the

river Gangiya to defecate and then he saw two dogs were digging earth. Coming near the

spot, he had found the sari of his sister. Then he returned home and informed his mother

and aunty about the incident. He again went to the land near the Gangiya river. By that

time, other villagers had also gathered there and the police personnel had also arrived

along with the sweepers. Police sweepers had exhumed the dead body of his sister Earon

Bibi. The body was later taken away by the police for postmortem examination. This

witness has deposed that he believed except for accused Mujibur Paramanik all the other

accused persons, in a body, had killed his younger sister.

14. PW-6 Md. Hakim Ali Paramanik is a resident of the same village where the victim

Earon Bibi used to reside. PW-6 had stated that one morning, about 5 years ago, he was

taking his cattle to the alluvial land near the river Gangiya which is situated in the south

of the house of the accused person. On his way back, he had seen Earon Bibi doing

household works in the house of the accused Azim Uddin. On the morning of the

following day, the accused Azim Uddin had come to his house and informed him that

Earon Bibi had gone missing. Later on, he had heard that Earon Bibi had been found

dead.

15. PW-7 Md. Sahjahan Akand is another co-villagers who has also deposed in similar Page No.# 10/17

lines by saying that he had seen Earon Bibi with a baby on her lap in the house of the

accused person while he was coming to the alluvial land near the river Gangiya. The

following day, in the morning hours, while he was proceeding towards the alluvial land

near the river Gangiya, Earon Bibi's mother-in-law had told him that she had gone missing

from their house since the previous night. Some 6/7 days later Police had recovered the

dead body of the Earon Bibi from under the sand in the alluvial land near the river

Gangiya. Likewise, Musstt. Surjan Bibi (PW-8) had also stated that she had also seen

Earon Bibi in the house of the accused person in the previous evening while she was

taking her cattle along. On the following day, Azirun Bibi was walking by her side saying

that Earon Bibi had run away from the home in the previous night.

16. PW-9 Md. Mahmud Ali Paramanik is another co-villagers. He has deposed that

about six years ago, one day Earon Bibi's father Idris Ali had approached him and told

that his daughter Earon Bibi had gone missing from the house of her husband Azim

Uddin. He too had searched for Earon Bibi but could not find her. After about 12/13 days

Abu Samad, i.e. the brother of Earon Bibi had called him and told that the dead body of

Earon Bibi had been found buried under the sand near the river Gangiya.

17. Dr. Nikunja Das who had conducted Postmortem Examination on the dead body of

Earon Bibi, was examined as PW-10. He had proved the Postmortem Report Exhibit-3.

The Postmortem Report reveals as follows:

"A female decomposed dead body of about 22 years was sent for post mortem examination. Rigor mortise both upper and lower limbs absent. Whole body is covered with sand and mud. Maggots seen all over the body. Abdomen is swollen, hairs over the head partially peeled off, skin over the body peeled off as the body is decomposed. Ligature mark seen over the neck which is continuous, Page No.# 11/17

transverse below the thyroid cartilage. Uterus- Dead foetus seen inside the uterus which is macerated decomposed. Skull is found. Age of the foetus is approximately 5/6 months."

Doctor had opined that the death is due to asphyxia following strangulation which is

ante mortem and homicidal in nature.

18. The investigation pertaining to Fakiragram P.S. Case No. 3/2009 pertaining to G.D

Entry No. 198 dated 14-01-2009 was conducted by Sub-Inspector Md. Khalique Ahmed

who was entrusted with the matter. The I/O was examined as prosecution witness as PW-

11. PW-11 has deposed that on 14-01-2009, one Mamud Ali appeared at the Sithila P.P.

and informed about the incident verbally. At that time, the In-Charge of Sithila P.P. made

G.D Entry No. 198 dated 14-01-2009 and informed the matter to the O/C of Fakiragram

Police Station. PW-11 had stated that the Police had recovered the dead body from the

alluvial soil near the river Gangiya. Postmortem and inquest was conducted over the dead

body. He was entrusted with the charge of carrying out investigation in the aforesaid

case. Accordingly, he drew up a sketch map, recorded the statements of the witnesses

but in the meantime, he was transferred. So he had handed over the relevant documents

of the case to the O/C of the Police Station. The charge-sheet in the case was submitted

by Sub-Inspector (S.I.) D.S. Singha.

19. The S.I. Dibendu Sekhar Singha was examined as PW-12. He has confirmed in his

deposition that he had received the Case Diary (C.D.) on 10-03-2010. Thereafter, he had

arrested two accused persons and forwarded them to the court, collected the Postmortem

Report and after examining the relevant documents of the case had submitted the Page No.# 12/17

charge-sheet against the accused persons. PW-12 has also proved the charge-sheet

Exhibit-4.

20. Upon analyzing the evidence lead by the prosecution side, the learned trial court

has held that it has been proved beyond doubt that the deceased Earon Bibi did not have

any serious mental ailment or depression. It has also been proved that the house of the

accused Azim Uddin was close to the place from where the dead body of Earon Bibi was

recovered and that the accused person did not inform the Police about Earon Bibi going

missing. That apart, accused Azim Uddin had remained absconding till 11-03-2010 and he

did not surrender before the Police. It was also the observation of the learned trial court

that the accused had failed to offer proper explanation as to the circumstances under

which Earon Bibi had disappeared. By relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in

the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2006) 10

SCC 106, the learned court below had concluded that since there was evidence to show

that the victim was in the house of the accused shortly before the incident took place and

since the accused husband used to reside in that house, it was incumbent upon him to

offer explanation as to how the victim had received injuries, which the accused had failed

to offer. Applying the doctrine of "last seen together" theory, the learned trial court had

held that there was a burden cast upon the accused to explain as to how the incident had

occurred and failure on his part to furnish proper explanation would give rise to a very

strong presumption of guilt against the accused. It has also been observed that the

accused Azim Uddin Paramanik did nothing to trace out his missing wife. On the basis of

such findings and conclusion, the learned trial court had convicted the accused Azim Page No.# 13/17

Uddin Paramanik under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife

while acquitting other four accused persons.

21. It is apparent from the nature of evidence lead by the prosecution side that the

case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the core question that would

arise for consideration by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is

as to whether, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain of

circumstances so as to establish the charge brought against the accused under Section

302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. On a close scrutiny of the evidence available on

record, we are afraid to note that the finding on the above point would have to be

recorded in the negative. We find that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge

brought against the accused persons by adducing cogent evidence on record. This we say

so also because of the fact that we find force in the primary argument of the learned

counsel for the appellant that the accused in this case has been convicted purely on the

basis of suspicion but not on the basis of any evidence available on record.

22. As noticed above, the basic thrust of the argument of learned Addl. P.P. Assam is to

the effect that the prosecution had lead sufficient evidence to show that the accused did

not do enough to trace out his wife after she had gone missing and that there is no

explanation as to how the accused has disappeared on the evening of 08-01-2009 from

her matrimonial house. In the above context, it is to be noted herein that it has clearly

come out from the evidence of PW-2 that on the very night of disappearance, i.e. 08-01-

2009, the appellant herein, along with others, had gone to the house of the VDP

Secretary (PW-2) and informed him about the matter. On the next morning, i.e. on 09-01-

Page No.# 14/17

2009 at around 07:00 a.m. they also went and informed the matter to the village

headman i.e. Gaon Burah (PW-3). Not only that, even the mother-in-law of the victim had

informed the informant, i.e. the father of the deceased on 11-01-2009 that his daughter

had gone missing from the matrimonial house.

23. It appears from the evidence available on record that not only had the accused and

his family members launched a search for the victim, but even the informant and his son,

upon receipt of information about his daughter going missing, had made relevant

enquiries in the house of the relatives and kith and kin so as to trace out his daughter but

could not find her. Neither party had informed the Police about the matter till the morning

of 14-01-2009 when the dead body was dug out from the alluvial soil of river Gangiya.

There is evidence on record, particularly, the testimony of PWs- 2 and 3 which indicates

that the victim Earon Bibi was suffering from some mental ailment and it appears that

some documentary proof pertaining to her mental health condition of the victim was also

made available before the learned trial court. Under the circumstances it is possible that

the search for the victim from 09-01-2009 to 14-01-2009 was maintained at a low key by

the in-laws and parents of the victim on an assumption that the victim had left the house

due to her mental ailments and would soon return back home on her own. Such hope

was completely shattered on 14-01-2009 when the dead body was recovered. Prior to

that, even the family members of the victim did not inform the Police about her going

missing. In view of the above, it would not be proper to impute motive upon the accused

merely on the ground of delay in informing the Police about the victim going missing,

unless there is evidence available on record to prove his deliberate complicity in the Page No.# 15/17

matter.

24. Coming to the next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is no

doubt correct that the evidence of PWs- 6, 7 and 8 goes to show that the victim Earon

Bibi was seen in her matrimonial house in the previous evening when she had gone

missing. On the basis of such evidence, the learned trial court had invoked the theory of

"last seen together" circumstances and held the accused liable for his failure to offer

proper explanation in the matter. However, what is to be borne in mind is that the

presence of the victim in her matrimonial home was very natural since she used to live

therein. Since the stand of the accused persons is to the effect that the victim had

voluntarily left the house in the evening of 08-01-2009 along with certain valuable items

and since the dead body was recovered almost a week thereafter, from another place, we

are of the view that neither the "last seen together" circumstances would have any

relevance in the facts of this case nor would there be any burden cast upon the accused

persons under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to the circumstances under

which the victim had sustained injuries.

25. There is no evidence on record to show that the victim was strangulated inside the

matrimonial house and thereafter her dead body was shifted near the river bank and

buried. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it must be borne in mind, does not relieve the

prosecution of its burden to prove the charge brought against the accused persons

beyond reasonable doubt but merely lessens the burden of the prosecution by casting an

obligation upon the inmates of the matrimonial home of the victim to offer explanation as

to how the deceased had received injuries provided it is established on the basis of Page No.# 16/17

cogent evidence brought on record that the incident did take place within the confines of

the matrimonial home of the victim wherein none other than her husband and in-laws

were present. However, the evidence available on record in this case is insufficient to

draw such a conclusion in the present case. As such, we are of the view that the law laid

down in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (Supra) would not have any application in

the facts of the present case and therefore, the learned trial court has erred in law in

applying the principle of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the facts of this case.

26. In the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra reported

in (1984) 4 SCC 116 the Supreme Court has laid down the principles that would be

applicable where the prosecution is required to prove the charge beyond reasonable

doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The observations made in paragraph 3.3 of

the said decision laying down the relevant parameters, are reproduced herein below for

ready reference:-

"1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

27. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we are of the view that

the conditions laid down in the case of Shard Birdhi Chand Sarda (Supra), has not

been satisfied in the present case. Rather, the prosecution's story appears to be based on Page No.# 17/17

suspicion rather than proper evidence collected by the I/O to prove the charge. The mere

fact that the accused person was absconding after the incident, cannot, in our opinion, be

a ground to convict him for committing murder of his wife unless the charge is proved on

the basis of cogent evidence brought on record.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned judgment

and order dated 21-05-2015 passed by the learned trial court is unsustainable in the eye

of law and the same is accordingly set aside.

The appellant is hereby acquitted due to want of evidence against him and shall be

set at liberty.

The appeal stands allowed.

We are informed that the appellant is in jail. The appellant be released forthwith if

his custodial detention is not required in connection with any other proceeding.

Send back the LCR.

                                JUDGE                            JUDGE

GS




Comparing Assistant