JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Singh, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This appeal from jail has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No. 26/98. 3. The prosecution story as it emerges from the ejahar lodged by P.W. 1 Ratneswar Kalita with Matia Police Station, Goalpara is that in the morning of 19.2.1998 when the door of the appellant's house was not opened upto 9 a.m., P.W.1 being the elder brother of the appellant, residing in the same compound, smelt some untoward incident because of the abnormal closure of the door of the appellant's house and, accordingly, he called some neighbours and in their presence the door was opened. On entering the house, the dead body of late Nirupama Kalita, wife of the appellant was found lying covered with a blanket in a pool of blood. They suspected that the appellant who did not have good relationship with his wife murdered her. Accordingly, the ejahar was lodged as noted above. 4. On receipt of that ejahar, Matia P.S. Case No. 9/98 under Section 302 IPC was registered and the law of investigation was set into motion. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and after arresting him he was sent to stand trial. 5. During trial, the appellant was given legal aid through an amicus curiae. As many as six witnesses including the Medical Officer, P.W.5 and the Investigating Officer (for short, I.O.), P.W.6 were examined. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he took up the plea of alibi denying the offence as at that point of time he was in Guwahati. To sustain this point he examined one witness. 6. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses so adduced before him and also upon hearing the parties, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him under the said section and accordingly sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 7. Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence, Mr. 1,000, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 7. Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence, Mr. J. Singh, learned amicus curiae has submitted that since the prosecution case is based precisely on circumstantial evidence, mainly on the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the facts and circumstances in the instant case was not fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances was not complete. Further, it is argued that the plea of alibi of the appellant, was not at all considered by the trial Court. 8. We have carefully perused the evidence of all the witnesses and the testimony of the relevant witnesses, i.e., P.W. 1, 2, 3 and including P.W.5, the Doctor may be discussed. P.W.1 who was the informant and the brother of the appellant, testified that his brother, i.e., the appellant and his wife (since deceased) did not have good terms. They used to quarrel frequently. The house in which they lived was situated in the western most part within their joint campus. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 18.2.1998 both the appellant and his wife were in the house. In cross-examination he has also stated that he did not see any visitor coming to the appellant's house. None had come in the evening also on the date of occurrence. On entering the house the body of the deceased was found wrapped in a blanket. He also saw injuries on the person of the deceased. From the testimony of this witness all suspicion can be pointed towards the appellant. 9. P.W.2 Prasanna Kalita also deposed that P.W.1 told him that the appellant had cut his wife. He saw cut injuries on her abdomen, arms and back. According to him, both the appellant and his wife (since deceased) lived in the same house. No one had entered in the said house on that day. 10. In the same vein Prabhat Kalita, P.W.3 and Mrigen Kalita, P.W.4 also corroborated that both the appellant and his deceased wife were living together in the same house. P.W.4 who was the uncle of the appellant, went to the extent in his deposition saying that in the night of 18.2.1998 at about 1.30 or 2 o'clock, he heard an indistinct sound which way the sound of cry and the same came from the direction of the appellants house. P.W.4 who was the uncle of the appellant, went to the extent in his deposition saying that in the night of 18.2.1998 at about 1.30 or 2 o'clock, he heard an indistinct sound which way the sound of cry and the same came from the direction of the appellants house. But he did not get up from the bed but he learnt that the appellant had gone out through the gate. In the morning he saw the appellant walking on the road for about 20 minutes and then going towards Dudhnoi. Thereafter, he was informed by P.W.1 that the door of the appellant's house was kept shut from outside and not yet opened. With the help of neighbours, the door was opened and he saw the dead body of late Nirupama kept covered with black blanket. 11. Coming to the evidence of Dr. Abdul Kader, P.W.5 it is seen that as many as four injuries were found at the time of post-mortem examination. As per the post-mortem report the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (1) A cut injury on the left side of the neck 4 cm. x 4 cm. x 5 cm. (2) A cut injury on the right plank 10 cm. x 4 cm. x 4 cm. Viscera has come out from the wound. (3) A cut injury on the back of the chin 6 cm. × 4 c.m. × 4 cm. (4) A cut injury on the scalp 4 cm. × 4 c.m. × 2 c.m. 12. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of the above mentioned witnesses, it appears that incriminating circumstances have been clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and such circumstances have formed a chain of event as would permit no conclusion other than the one of guilt of the appellant. The depositions would also go to show that the appellant was found to be responsible for inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased recorded by the Doctor. It has also come in the evidence that on the date of occurrence no one had ever visited the house of the appellant either in the evening or in the night. That being so, it is the responsibility of the appellant to explain his conduct and the cause of death of the deceased, who being his wife used to live in the same room/house. That being so, it is the responsibility of the appellant to explain his conduct and the cause of death of the deceased, who being his wife used to live in the same room/house. No such explanation has been given by the appellant to prove his innocence. 13. As regards the plea of alibi taken by the appellant as submitted by Mr. Singh that he was not present in his house on the night of occurrence as he was away in Guwahati, the defence failed to prove such plea. Even D.W.I negated the plea of alibi by deposing that at the time of occurrence the appellant was at Bapuji Nagar, Goalpara. On the other hand, P.W.4 found the appellant that very morning moving on the road. It is, therefore, inferred that the appellant took a false plea of alibi. The trial court rightly discarded that plea of the appellant. Such false alibi would definitely be a link in the chain of circumstances. More so, the appellant, as per deposition of P.W.6, the I.O., was arrested while he was absconding. 14. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order and, in our opinion, the same is a well reasoned judgment wherein various cases of the Apex Court have been cited and discussed on the point of circumstantial evidence as well as the responsibility of a husband to explain the cause of death of his wife when both of them were residing in the same dwelling house. On careful scrutiny of the judgments of the Apex Court relied upon in the impugned judgment and order, it can safely be concluded that the circumstantial evidence as accepted by the learned Sessions Judge for conviction of the appellant are sufficient and the same has completed the chain to rope in the appellant under Section 302F IPC for killing of his wife. 15. In view of the above discussion and observation, we are of the confirmed view that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the prosecution has been able to successfully prove beyond all reasonable doubts the involvement of the appellant in the said offence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence so handed down by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby upheld and confirmed. 16. In the result, the appeal fails and, accordingly, stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed