P.G. AGARWAL, J.— Heard Mr. Bharali, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Begum, learned PP. 2. The two appellants before us are the brother and sister, Sister Bhabani Talukdar was married to Kula Talukdar or Udalguri Town and the couple lived together along with a minor son, Jibon Jyoti Talukdar (PW-3) and minor Bhaswati. The brother Mahendra was a student of Tangla College and used to reside with the couple and attend his classes therefrom. In the early hours of 25th July, 1997 on hearing the wailing of accused Bhabani the other family members residing in the nearby houses came to the house of the deceased and found him lying dead with cut injuries on the neck and back. The bloodstained axe and a letter (Material Ext. 1) were found lying nearby. 3. Sri Pradip Kumar Talukdar, brother of deceased Kula Talukdar lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) at Udalguri Police Station, whereupon police came to the place of occurrence and held inquest over the dead body and seized the weapon of assault and the letter and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem examination which was conducted by Doctor Deben Saikia (PW-4). The Doctor found as follows: "A dead body of a male individual of average built aged about 46 years. Eyes closed, mouth closed, blood stain all over the face, neck and hands. Rogormortis present over extremities. No. 1-Deep cut injury right side of the neck averted edged about 10 cm in length x 2.5 cm x 10 cm depth; cutting all large vessels, muscles and nerves. The injury extends from back of the neck upto the angle of mandible in front. No. 2-Another deep cut injury in the back involving right occipital bone to the lobule of the right ear about 7.5 cm long x 5 cm breadth. No. 3-An incised cut injury with averted edged below the right shoulder 5 cm x 5 cm. No. 4-Another cut injury in the posterior scalp 5 cm x 2 cm. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature. In my opinion the death is due to the shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury sustained Ext.3 is PM report. Ext. 3(1) is my signature." 4. The medical evidence has not been challenged and the Doctor was not cross-examined 5. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature. In my opinion the death is due to the shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury sustained Ext.3 is PM report. Ext. 3(1) is my signature." 4. The medical evidence has not been challenged and the Doctor was not cross-examined 5. There is evidence of informant Pradip Kumar Talukdar (PW-1), his wife Manju Devi Talukdar (PW-2), the son of accused Jiban Jyoti Talukdar (PW-3) and Priyajeet Das (PW-7). They had seen the dead body of the deceased with injuries and they witnessed the seizure of letter (Material Ext. 1) and the axe (Material Ext. 3),. PW-5 and PW-6 merely heard about the incident and their evidence are not at all material. 6. In view of the oral and medical evidence on record we concur with the finding of the trial Court that it is a case of homicidal death. 7. In the present case, there is no eye witness or direct testimony as to who killed the deceased and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. 8. PW-1 and PW-2, the younger brother and sister-in-law of the deceased used to reside in the separate house adjacent to that of the deceased. They have deposed that the deceased used to reside in his house along with his wife accused Bhabani, son Jiban Jyoti (PW-3) and minor daughter Bhaswati. Accused appellant Mahendra is the own brother-in-law of the deceased and brother of the accused Bhabani. He was doing some business and was also a student of Tangla College and the accused used to reside there to attend his business and study. This witness has further deposed that on the previous evening, accused Mahendra was in the said house and he was found missing/absconding since the time of occurrence. The house of the deceased consists of three rooms. The northern room was occupied by the deceased and wife and kids whereas the middle room was occupied by the accused Mahendra. There was a bed and a table which were used by the accused Mahendra for study. The other room also contained a bed. The dead body was found in the surplus room. 9. The northern room was occupied by the deceased and wife and kids whereas the middle room was occupied by the accused Mahendra. There was a bed and a table which were used by the accused Mahendra for study. The other room also contained a bed. The dead body was found in the surplus room. 9. PW-3, son of the deceased was aged about 10/11 years and student of Class V when he deposed before the Court in the year 2001 and as such he was aged about 6/7 years when the incident took place in the year 1997. He has deposed that on the particular night he was sleeping along with his sister and mother and the father was sleeping in another room. In the early morning, his mother went to the father's room and thereafter he heard the mother's screaming and went to the father's room and found his father dead. There was cut mark and blood and an axe was also lying on the floor. Further, another piece of paper was lying near the dead body. This witness (PW-3) has been cross-examined by the prosecution as well as the defence. We find that the statement of this witness was recorded U/S 164 Cr. P.C. and U/S. 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Police Officer. This witness has resiled from earlier statement to some extent and as such he was allowed to be cross-examined by the piosecution and the defence. From the evidence on record we find that prosecution has been able to establish the following circumstances and placed reliance on the same for seeking conviction of the accused appellants: (1) Both the accused persons used to reside with the deceased in the same house and they were present in the said house on the night of the incident along with PW-3 and another minor child. (2) There was no other member in the house except the two appellants. (3) The weapon of assault was found lying near the deceased and it was blood stained. (4) Material Ext. 1 letter was found near the dead body. (5) Material Ext. 1 is an admission of guilt by the accused Mahendra. (6) There is evidence of the hand writing expert that the material Ext. 1 letter was written by accused Mahendra. (7) Accused Mahendra absconded soon after the incident. 10. (4) Material Ext. 1 letter was found near the dead body. (5) Material Ext. 1 is an admission of guilt by the accused Mahendra. (6) There is evidence of the hand writing expert that the material Ext. 1 letter was written by accused Mahendra. (7) Accused Mahendra absconded soon after the incident. 10. So far the circumstances No. 1 is concerned there is evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 although PW-3 has deposed that his maternal Uncle, accused Mahendra was not present in the house. We find that PW-3 turned hostile. Moreover, we find that the class khata and other materials of Mahendra were found in the house of the deceased and the evidence of other prosecution witnesses is clinching. The accused came up with the plea of alibi by examining his elder brother but the law is well settled that plea of alibi must be established beyond all reasonable doubt and we find that the brother of the accused failed to establish the plea of alibi beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court considering the materials on record held that the said plea has not been established and we also find no force in the plea of alibi raised by Mahendra in view of telltale material available on record. So far, the accused Bhabani is concerned, there is no dispute at the Bar that she was also present in the house and it was she who first detected the dead body and raised alarm. 11. From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-8 we find that accused Mahendra was absconding soon after the incident and he appeared before the I.O. on 11.8.97 after obtaining order for pre-arrest bail from the Court and he was absconding since 25th July, 1997 till 11th August, 1997. In the case of Dhananjay Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220 the Apex Court observed: "We are conscious of the fact that abscondence by itself is not a circumstance which may lead to the only conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused because it is not unknown that innocent persons on being falsely implicated may abscond to save themselves but abscondence of an accused after the occurrence is certainly a circumstance which warrants consideration and careful scrutiny." 12. In the present case we find that the accused Mahendra was absconding soon after the incident which must have taken place either during the night or in .the early morning. The accused was absconding prior to the discovery of the dead body by the inmates of the house and as such it cannot be said that the accused apprehended false implication as there was no case of false implication at that stage. We, therefore, hold that the abscondance of the accused Mahendra is certainly a circumstance appearing against him. 13. The most important circumstance appearing against the accused Mahendra is an admission of guilt. Material Ext. 1 is a letter, which was found lying near the dead body. This has been deposed to by PW-1 and PW-2 and even by PW-3. The Investigating Police Officer has also deposed that he found material Ext. 1 letter and material Ext. 3 axe lying near the dead body. The contents of material Ext. 1 reads as follows (on translation as material Ext. 1 is in Assamese): "My dear sister, On the night I committed murder of your beloved husband and my brother-in-law. But, I am guilty to do the same without informing you. Therefore there is a limit of patience. People consume alcohol, but alcohol should not consume people. So, I have no mind to see you in white dress. I was silent for a long time, but today I failed. Therefore, if you have only one meal a day after hard labour, then also you would be able to live in peace, because people want peace. Therefore, you try to make Jibanand Bhaswati noble citizen, not as murderer like me. Their welfare is my welfare. You will tell Jiban and Bhaswati that Bapan Mama had committed murder of your father, I have no courage to commit murder nor I had. But situation changed everything. Today I learnt it and have gone out. I am guilty before you and before all. Mahendra Keot 24.7.97' 14. In order to establish the authorship of material of Ext. 1 the Investigating Police Officer obtained the specimen signature and specimen hand writing of the accused Mahendra in presence of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Udalguri after obtaining the necessary order from the Court. 15. Ext. 3 containing S-l to 5-6 are the specimen signatures and hand writing. Police has also seized material Ext. 1 the Investigating Police Officer obtained the specimen signature and specimen hand writing of the accused Mahendra in presence of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Udalguri after obtaining the necessary order from the Court. 15. Ext. 3 containing S-l to 5-6 are the specimen signatures and hand writing. Police has also seized material Ext. 2 (a college khata used by Mahendra) containing the admitted handwriting and signatures of Mahendra Keot which were marked as A-1 to A-13. The fact that accused is a student of Tangla College and used to study residing in the house of the deceased has been admitted by both the accused in their statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. The specimen handwriting and signatures along with the hand writing in question Material Ext. 1 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison. Ext. 5 is the report of the Deputy Director who has opined that the person who wrote S-1 to S-6 and A-1 to A-13 also wrote the document Material Ext. 1 which was marked as U-1 and U-2. The report Ext. 5 is admissible in evidence in view of the provision U/S 293 Cr. PC. 16. A bare perusal of Material Ext. 1 will convince anyone that it is a clear admission of guilt by the accused and it also shows that the author tried to justify the killing and it also explains the incident of the accused. 17. In view of the above circumstances and evidence appearing against the accused appellant Mahendra we have no hesitation to hold that the chain of circumstances established by prosecution leads to only one conclusion that it was accused appellant Mahendra who killed his own brother-in-law and the reason for killing has also been mentioned in Material Ext. 1. 18. The next question for consideration is whether the killing was made by Mahendra alone or the co-accused Bhabani was also involved. The trial Court has held that as the incident of murder took place during night and the wife i.e. accused Bhabani started screaming in the early morning hour only and as she was sleeping in the same room with her husband she was a privy to the above murder and accordingly convicted her. The defence plea, on the other hand, is that accused Bhabani discovered the dead body in the early hours when she went to the room of her husband. The defence plea, on the other hand, is that accused Bhabani discovered the dead body in the early hours when she went to the room of her husband. It is disclosed from the evidence of PW-3 that his father used to consume liquor and return late to the house and as such he was sleeping in another room and the wife and kids were sleeping in another room. The witness (PW-3) was very specific by stating that on the ill-fated night he was sleeping with his mother and minor sister in another room and the father was in a separate room. As the wife was not sleeping in the room where dead body was found, it can not be said that she had knowledge about the killing of her husband and as such no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused Bhabani for screaming in the morning hours. 19. There is another aspect of the matter also. Prosecution has placed heavy reliance on Material Ext. 1. The letter was written by co-accused. If Material Ext. 1 is to be believed then the involvement of co-accused Bhabani must be ruled out as we find that Material Ext.-l was addressed to accused Bhabani. If she was a privy/accomplice to the murder where was the need for the brother to write the letter like that and get himself into trouble ? He could have simply walked away without taking the trouble of writing a letter admitting the guilt and seeking the pardon from her sister. Moreover, the co-accused is the own brother of Bhabani and as such there was no scope for allowing the imagination to run high. 20. In view of the circumstances stated above, we find that the guilt of the accused Bhabani has not been established and accordingly we allow her appeal. The order of conviction and sentence passed against her is set aside and she is acquitted. She is on bail. She need not surrender to the bail bond, which stands discharged. 21. So far the appeal of accused appellant Mahendra Keot is concerned, the same stands dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against him is upheld. 22. Send down the records.