P.K.Saikia, J;— 1. In this appeal, the judgment and order dated 26.02.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Session Case No. 31/2008, has been challenged. By the judgment above, learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar had convicted the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused appellant preferred this appeal on the grounds, as stated in the memo of appeal. 3. The facts and circumstances leading to the Sessions case aforesaid, in brief, are that on 04.11.2005 at about 6AM, one Kalpana Moitra, wife of Paresh Moitra was found dead inside her house with blood still oozing out of the wound on her body. One Haradan Moitra, her son, raised hue and cry which brought the people nearby to the place of occurrence. People who gathered at such place immediately apprehended the accused and handed him over to Police. 4. An FIR to that effect on being lodged with the Officer-in-charge, Gossaigaon Police Station, Police registered a case vide Gossaigaon PS Case No. 208/05 under Section 302 IPC and ordered one Shri Utpal Kr. Nath, SI of Police, to investigate the same. Shri Nath, on being, so entrusted with the investigation, visited the place of occurrence and found the body of the deceased well inside her house. 5. He also noticed one huge cut mark on the throat of the deceased. A blood stained dao was also found lying near the dead body. When he arrived at the place of occurrence, he found the accused already being apprehended by villagers. Having found the accused at the place of occurrence, he arrested him and took him in his custody. 6. In due course, he held an inquest on the dead body, seized a dao, stained with blood from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses and sent the dead body to hospital for post-mortem examination. He also examined the witnesses in the course of investigation and on completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial there. 7. He also examined the witnesses in the course of investigation and on completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial there. 7. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of sessions for disposal in accordance with law. On receipt of the case and after hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Court, Kokrajhar, framed a charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses including Medical Officer and the Police Officer who investigated the case. Statement of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. In his statement U/s. 313 CrPC,he set up the plea of total denial. He however, did not adduce any evidence. 9. After going through the materials on record and after hearing arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully established the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and accordingly, he convicted the accused of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been impugned, here in this appeal. 10. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be allowed to stand since it suffers from several infirmities of extremely serious nature. In order to avoid repetition, instead of reproducing those arguments, here, we propose to discuss those infirmities at appropriate place at appropriate time. 11. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State of Assam contends that the learned Trial Court has recorded the verdict of guilt against the accused/ appellant on the basis of the materials on record and it did so, on proper marshaling of the evidence on record having regard to the law involved therein. 11. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State of Assam contends that the learned Trial Court has recorded the verdict of guilt against the accused/ appellant on the basis of the materials on record and it did so, on proper marshaling of the evidence on record having regard to the law involved therein. Such a judgment, therefore, does not call for any interference and as such, he urges this Court to affirm the same instead. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. However, before we could consider the merit or otherwise of the arguments, so advanced by the learned counsel of the parties, we find it necessary to reproduce the evidence tendered from the side of prosecution and the evidence of Doctor is first taken up for consideration. 13. The Medical Officer who performed autopsy on the dead body of Kalpana Maitra, the deceased, was Dr. Nikunja Das and he was examined as PW 1 in the case aforesaid. His evidence is as follows: On 5th day of November/2005 he was at RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar, as M & H.O.1. On that day, he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Kalpana Moitra, female, 35 yrs. in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. No. 208/05 U/s 302 IPC and found the following: A female dead body of about 35 yrs. wearing saree, petticoat, blouse, bra soaked with blood was sent for post mortem examination. Rigor mortise both upper and lower limb present. Sharp cut injury over the neck front measuring 6 inch. X 2 inches x deep into the trachea and larynx where anterior wall is cut. Jugular artery and vein cut (severed), cut mark is transverse, non continuous, without tentative cut marks. Other parts were healthy. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage following sharp cut injury on neck which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Ext.1 is his report. 14. Defence did not challenge the evidence, so rendered by the Doctor and therefore, his unchallenged evidence coupled with post mortem examination report (Ext. 1) clearly show that on or about the night of 3rd November, 2005, the deceased died a homicidal death which was occasioned by huge cut wound on her neck and which also produced her instantaneous death. 15. Defence did not challenge the evidence, so rendered by the Doctor and therefore, his unchallenged evidence coupled with post mortem examination report (Ext. 1) clearly show that on or about the night of 3rd November, 2005, the deceased died a homicidal death which was occasioned by huge cut wound on her neck and which also produced her instantaneous death. 15. So situated, let us examine the evidence of remaining witnesses one by one and evidence of one Shri Jitendra Nath Barman is first taken up for discussion. Shri Barman was examined as PW 2. He deposes that on the fateful day, some villagers from the locality of the accused person told him that the accused had killed his wife. 16. On receipt of such information, he rushed to the house of the accused person and found the wife of the accused lying dead on her bed inside her house. He also noticed a cut wound on the neck of the deceased. He also found blood spilling all over the ground in the room where dead body was found. By the time, he arrived at the place of occurrence, a number of villagers too gathered there. 17. Coming to know about the incident, he lodged an FIR with the police.Ext. 2 is the said FIR. In the meantime, the Police came to the place of occurrence and it held inquest on the body of the person aforesaid and prepared a report in that connection in presence of the witnesses as well. Ext.3 is the said inquest report. Police seized a dao in presence of witnesses which includes PW 2 too. 18. The said seizure list was proved as Ext.4. In his cross examination, he has stated that on the fateful night, a musical show was organized at Gaubari Bazar and a large number of people attended the said function. He was also among the audience who attended the aforesaid function. The accused was seen attending such function. However, he left such place well before function was over. But function continued till dawn. 19. In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not know at what point of time the accused left the place where musical show was organized. He was also among the audience who attended the aforesaid function. The accused was seen attending such function. However, he left such place well before function was over. But function continued till dawn. 19. In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not know at what point of time the accused left the place where musical show was organized. He has also stated in his cross-examination that when he met the accused in his house, he questioned the accused as to how his wife got killed to which he made no reply. He further admitted in his cross examination that he wrote the FIR in the Police Station and that he did so on the advice of Officer in charge of Gossaigaon P.S. 20. PW 3-Shri Ram Narayan Das, deposes that he came to know about the incident aforesaid only in the morning of the day which followed night in question. On getting the information about the wife of accused being murdered by someone, he rushed to the house of the accused person and found the body of Kalpana, the deceased, inside her house. 21. At that time, accused person was also there but he was severely beaten by the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence. In the meantime, the Police came to the place of occurrence and arrested the accused person. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the accused maintained a good relationship with his wife. 22. PW 4 Shri Dhiren Das is also a carpenter by profession. He is heard saying that he resides in the same village where the accused resides. One day in the morning, he got information that Kalpana Moitra, wife of the accused, was murdered. On receipt of such information, he went to house of accused Parimol Moitra. Thereafter he came to the police station and informed Police about the incident in question. 23. Police also came to the place of occurrence, arrested the accused person, and took the accused in its custody and also sent the dead body to hospital for necessary post-mortem examination. He is also heard saying that on being interrogated by police, the accused admitted that he has murdered his wife. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused confessed his guilt in presence of large number of villagers and that police seized a dao in his presence from the place of occurrence. 24. He is also heard saying that on being interrogated by police, the accused admitted that he has murdered his wife. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused confessed his guilt in presence of large number of villagers and that police seized a dao in his presence from the place of occurrence. 24. PW 5, Shri Krishna Moitra, is a priest. He deposes that the accused is his related brother. The deceased is the wife of the accused and his house is situated at a place not far away from his house. One day at about 9 a.m. he saw the dead body of Kalpana lying on her bed inside her house. There was a huge cut wound on her throat. 25. He has further stated that on the fateful night, he attended a musical show at a place not far away from their house and returned home around 6 am. When he arrived at the house of the accused person, he saw accused being beaten by the villagers who gathered there. It is also in his evidence that police seized a dao which was lying near the dead body on the strength of seizure list Ext.4. 26. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he heard some villagers enquiring the accused as to why he had gone to enjoy the musical function leaving his wife alone at home. In his cross examination, he has further stated that few days before the alleged d incident the accused collected Rs. 30,000/- which he obtained from selling two bighas of land and that such money had been taken away by someone on the night in question. 27. PW 6, Shri Jagadish Ch. Barman, a businessman by profession, disposes that on the fateful night, he had gone to Guabari Bazar to attend a musical function. He attended the function till the function was over but he did not notice who were the people who enjoyed such a show on the night aforesaid. PW 6 was declared hostile to prosecution. 28. PW 7, Shri Utpal Kr Nath, SI of Police, deposes that on 4.11.2005, he was posted at Gossaigaon Police Station as SI of Police. On that day, Shri Jagadish Ch. Barman filed an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Gossaigaon Police Station. Having received the FIR, O/C, Gossaigaon P.S. registered a case and entrusted him to investigate the case. 29. 28. PW 7, Shri Utpal Kr Nath, SI of Police, deposes that on 4.11.2005, he was posted at Gossaigaon Police Station as SI of Police. On that day, Shri Jagadish Ch. Barman filed an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Gossaigaon Police Station. Having received the FIR, O/C, Gossaigaon P.S. registered a case and entrusted him to investigate the case. 29. On being so entrusted with the investigation of the case, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying inside the house of the accused. He also noticed a cut wound on her throat. A blood stained knife was also found lying on the ground near the dead body. The accused was apprehended by villagers and was handed over to him. 30. When he asked him as to how his wife got killed, the accused admitted his guilt and told him that he killed his wife because he found her with an outsider in his house on the night in question. He also claims that having seen his wife with another person, he lost his control and killed his wife. He seized a dao in presence of witnesses on the strength of Ext.4. 31. He conducted an inquest on the dead body and prepared a report in this connection (Ext.3) and sent the dead body to hospital for post-mortem examination and on completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused person alleging that the accused committed the murder of his wife. 32. It is in his evidence that before he could complete the investigation, he was transferred for which the remaining part of the investigation was completed by one Md. Sirajul Islam. On the basis of the materials on record, Ext. 5 charge-sheet was prepared and same was laid before the Magistrate in due course. 33. In cross-examination, he has stated that the accused made a confessional statement in presence of villagers, that he accompanied the accused to the place of occurrence, that he visited the place of occurrence for the first time during the course of investigation, that he did not seize the blood stained plank of the bed on which the deceased was found lying when he arrived at the place of occurrence during the course of investigation and that he did not arrest one Dhiren Das. 34. 34. On perusal of evidence, so reproduced, it would appear clear that the prosecution has adopted a two pronged strategy to make out the charge, leveled against the accused person. First, it relies on the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused person. Secondly, the prosecution relies on a number of circumstances which, according to the prosecution, when read together form a complete chain of events leading to only and sole conclusion that the accused and none else committed the crime under consideration. 35. Above being the strategies, adopted by the prosecution to take its case to the logical conclusion, we need to ascertain how far above strategy helps the prosecution in reaching its goal and in that connection, at the very outset, we propose to consider if the prosecution case premised on extra judicial confession stands to reason. 36. In that connection, we have very carefully perused the testimonies, rendered by the PWs touching such a claim. On perusal of such evidence, we have found that the accused seemed to have made a confession about his guilt to some of the prosecution witnesses. However, what have caught our eyes and that too instantly is that such confession was made in presence of Police Officer. The evidence of PW 4 as well as the evidence of I.O. (PW 7) makes such a position vividly clear. 37. Law relating to confession made to Police Officer or the confession by the accused while in custody of Police is well settled. Such custody may not be alone post arrest custody. If an accused is within the ken of surveillance of the Police during which his movements are restricted, it can also be regarded as custody within the meaning of custody as contemplated in Section 26 of the Evidence Act. 38. In this connection, we may profitably peruse the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of A.P. Vs Gangula Satya Muthy reported in (1977) 1 SCC 272. In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “It is true that in the deposition PW 6 and PW 7 have said that it was at 7 a.m. that the respondent made the confession to them. In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “It is true that in the deposition PW 6 and PW 7 have said that it was at 7 a.m. that the respondent made the confession to them. But the Sub-Inspector said that the accused was produced in the police station at 7.30 p.m. We think that much should not have been made out of that disparity as there could be a possibility of making an error in recording the time a.m. for p.m. We say this because both PW 6 and PW 7 uniformly said that they took the respondent to the police station situated about 3 kilometers away. As the police records show that they produced him at 7.30 p.m. It is only inferential that the respondent would have made the confession in the evening and not during morning hours. At any rate it is not proper to jettison an otherwise sturdy piece of evidence of extra judicial confession on the ground of such a rickety premise. “The other reasoning based on Section 26 of the Evidence Act is also fallacious. It is true any confession made to a Police Officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Act and that ban is further stretched through Section 26 to the confession made to any other person also if the confessor was then in Police custody. Such ‘custody’ needs not necessarily be post-arrest custody. The word ‘custody’ used in Section 26 is to be understood in a pragmatic sense. If any accused is within the ken of surveillance of the Police during which his movements are restricted then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance for the purpose of the section. If he makes any confession during that period to any person be he not a Police Officer, such confession would also be hedged within the banned contours outlined in Section 26 of the Evidence Act. 39. Above being the legal position with regard to confession made in presence of the Police, we have no hesitation in holding that confession which was relied on by the prosecution and which was accepted by learned Trial Court is not at all judicially acceptable confession and as such, learned Trial Court could not have accepted the same in recording a verdict of guilt against the accused person. Being so, one of the most important pillars on which prosecution erects its edifice never exists at any point of time. 40. So situated, let us now consider some other alleged circumstances which prosecution has pressed into action to make out the case against the accused person. A careful perusal of the testimonies, rendered by the PWs, in the light of averments, made in the FIR, would make it clear that the prosecution quite arduously contends that on the night in question the accused and none else killed his wife. The fact that the wife of the deceased died a violent death and that too in her own house, coupled with the fact that there was absolutely no evidence on record to show that any person other than accused was there in his house on the night aforesaid make such a conclusion inevitable. 41. In that connection, the prosecution has also pointed out that there was evidence on record to show that accused was in his house on the night in question or at least around the time when the deceased got killed, and these speak quite clearly that the accused, and none else, is the author of the crime under consideration. Therefore, unless the accused explained as to how the deceased met her death so violently on the night aforesaid and that too in her own house, he cannot escape being found guilty of the offence,he was charged with. Section 106 of the Evidence Act clearly enjoins such a duty on the accused person. 42. Controverting the aforesaid argument, the defence claims that on the night in question, the accused was not in his house as alleged by the prosecution but had been in a musical show instead throughout the night. Being so, it is not possible, on his part, to comment/explain as to how his wife got killed on the night in question. Such a fact also establishes that the accused can, under no circumstances, be held liable for the death of his wife. 43. In other words, the defense appears to have set up the plea of alibi. Being so, it is not possible, on his part, to comment/explain as to how his wife got killed on the night in question. Such a fact also establishes that the accused can, under no circumstances, be held liable for the death of his wife. 43. In other words, the defense appears to have set up the plea of alibi. Such a stance, taken by the accused person, emerges very clearly from the cross examination of PWs, from the statement of the accused person recorded under Section 313 CrPC as well as from the argument which the learned counsel for the defence had advanced before the Court below during the trial. Thus, we need to know if such a stand taken by the accused finds favor from the materials on record. 44. Here, it needs to be stated that a person who set up the plea of alibi must prove such a plea beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing positive evidence. In other words, standard, fixed for proving a plea of alibi and the standard, fixed for prosecution to prove its claim, are one and same. In order to know how far the accused succeeds in discharging such a liability, we consider very carefully the materials on record. 45. On carful perusal of evidence of record, we have found that the defence did not adduce any evidence to make out such a plea. Rather, it relies on the testimonies rendered by those PWs, more particularly, the testimonies tendered by PW 2 & PW 5. In his cross examination, PW 2 states that on the night in question, a musical show was organized in their village and such a function was organized at a place very close to the residence of the accused person, to be precise, one furlong only. 46. According to him, he too attended the said show and also found the accused there. It is also in his evidence that he remained there well beyond the midnight. PW 2 went on to say that, the accused remained there at the musical show till 5 AM next day although he claimed that he was the first man to leave the function which was attended to by cross-section of people coming from a reasonably big surrounding area. 47. PW 2 went on to say that, the accused remained there at the musical show till 5 AM next day although he claimed that he was the first man to leave the function which was attended to by cross-section of people coming from a reasonably big surrounding area. 47. But such a claim of PW 2 that the accused was in the venue of musical show till 5 a.m. on 4th of November’ 2005 sounds pretty unbelievable, for, PW 2, being one of the hundreds of the audience, cannot be expected to know at what time on the night aforesaid, the accused, who, again being one of the hundreds of the spectators, left the venue of the function, more so, when PW 2 himself admitted that he had left the venue of musical show even before any other persons including the accused left such a place. 48. The claim of PW 2 that he was the first man to leave the venue aforesaid is equally unbelievable for the reason that it is humanly impossible for anyone to monitor the movements of members of a reasonably large gathering, more so, when such assembly took place at night. This is common human behavior and the judicial Courts are well entitled to take notice of such fact. Being so, the claim of PW 2 that the accused was at the venue aforesaid on the night in question is found to have fallen flat on its face. 48(A). On the other hand, in his cross examination, PW 5 too is heard saying that he learnt from the other people that the accused was apprehended from such function on the morning in question. On a perusal of evidence of PW 5, we have found that the evidence of PW 5 is not admissible in law since the same is in the nature of hearsay evidence only. Being so, neither PW 2 nor PW 5 could even probabilize the claim of the defence that the accused was not in his house on the night aforesaid—much less their proving such a claim beyond all reasonable doubt as required under the law. 49. Even if we assume for the sake of argument for a moment that the accused was there at the musical show on the night in question, yet such a fact alone would not absolve the accused of the charge, brought against him. 49. Even if we assume for the sake of argument for a moment that the accused was there at the musical show on the night in question, yet such a fact alone would not absolve the accused of the charge, brought against him. This is mainly for the reason that the place where such function was organized on the night, stated above, was situated at a distance of only one furlong from the residence of the accused person. Such a distance no way makes it impossible for the accused to commit the crime under consideration on the night between 2nd and 4th November, 2005. 50. In this connection, we may note the illustration (a) to Section 11 of the Evidence Act. Such illustration runs as follows: “(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when crime was committed A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, it is relevant.” 51. When we consider the revelations, detailed hereinbefore, in the light of illustration aforesaid, it would appear more than clear that even if the accused was seen enjoying the musical show aforesaid on the night stated above, same alone would not have established that he did not commit the crime in question. The defence, thus, could not at all establish its plea alibi. 52. Quite contrary to it, on the materials on record, we are constrained to hold that on the night aforesaid, the accused was there at his house or at least around the time when the incident in question occurred. The materials on record also reveal that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that any person other than the accused was there in his house on the night in question. 53. The materials on record also reveal that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that any person other than the accused was there in his house on the night in question. 53. But then, the accused made another plea, very feeble of course, to show that a burglary was committed in his house on the night in question when some unknown miscreants had taken away an amount to the tune of Rs.30,000/- which he earned on selling out some of his landed property and therefore, an attempt has been made to show that the miscreants who committed the burglary might have killed his wife while being resisted by her in the commission of the said offence. 54. However, such an effort is found to be a design to hoodwink the truth since there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the accused had ever initiated any legal action against person(s) who allegedly trespassed into his house on the night in question. Even he did not assign any reason as to why he did not initiate any legal action against such intruder (s) who reportedly extinguished the life of her wife in a most tragic and horrible way. 55. Such a conduct on the part of the accused person is found to be totally incongruous with natural and normal human behavior and it strongly raises serious doubts about the veracity of the claim of the accused that his house was burgled on the night in question. These are also testimonies to the fact that the accused had invented aforesaid plea just to screen himself from the punishment which was to fall upon him for the misdeed, he committed on the all eventful night. 56. The defence has referred us to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Mehendra Singh Dahiya reported in (2000)3SSC 109 to bring home its claim that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused /appellant could not be held guilty of the offence of murder. However, the decision referred to above, has no application in the case under consideration as the facts and circumstances in the case referred to above are completely different from one, we have been seized with. 57. Defence, has also assailed the prosecution case on other counts as well. However, the decision referred to above, has no application in the case under consideration as the facts and circumstances in the case referred to above are completely different from one, we have been seized with. 57. Defence, has also assailed the prosecution case on other counts as well. They are : (i) it did not examine some very vital witnesses who could have thrown enormous light on the matter under consideration and (ii) the prosecution also did not probe certain circumstances which have huge implications on the out-come of prosecution case. Does such an argument, advanced from the side of prosecution, hold any water? 58. To get an answer to this quarry, we scan the materials on record very carefully. Coming to the first charge, above, we have found that it is true that one Shri Haradhan Maitra, the son of the deceased was the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence to find his mother being killed but he was not examined. But we must not be oblivious to the fact that he appears to a young boy who had the misfortune of seeing his mother lying dead in their house on the morning of 4th November 2005. 59. In such a scenario, non examination of the young son of the deceased and the accused seems to be of no consequences, more so when he does not seem to be an eye witness to the incident in question and when he, being the son of the deceased and the accused person,can hardly be expected to divulge the real truth, particularly when he is found to be a boy of quite young age. 60. The defence also contends that there is evidence on record in the form of testimony of PW 5 to show that days before the alleged incident, the accused sold out some of his land for which he earned Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand). But such money and some other documents had gone missing from his house on or around the night when incident in question occurred. 61. We have discussed such circumstances in great detailed in our foregoing deliberation and same needs no further discussion here. Suffice it to say that such an allegation had never been brought to the notice of the Police Authority, leave alone it being probed by such an authority. 61. We have discussed such circumstances in great detailed in our foregoing deliberation and same needs no further discussion here. Suffice it to say that such an allegation had never been brought to the notice of the Police Authority, leave alone it being probed by such an authority. Non probing of those alleged circumstances has, therefore, no bearing whatsoever on the prosecution case. Thus, none of the allegations aforementioned could cause any harm to the prosecution case. 62. By now we have found that on the night in question, wife of the accused was killed in her own house and that too in a most barbaric way. The accused/ appellant offered an explanation that some miscreants who had burgled his house might have killed his wife on the night aforesaid. However, such plea remains far from being probabilised. 63. The defence also raised the plea of alibi. Such a plea too could not be proved by the defence. Our foregoing discussion makes such position very clear and it needs no further discussion. 64. On perusing the materials on record more and more, we have again found that the prosecution has successfully established some other circumstances as well.They are : (i) The wife of the accused died on the intervening night between 2rd and 4th of November, 2005. (ii) There was a huge wound on her throat. (iii) The wound was caused by sharp edged weapon (iv) The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (v) The accused was apprehended by the people in the wee hours of the morning aforementioned. (vi) The accused was mercilessly beaten by the public who gathered at the place of occurrence. (vi) A dao was recovered from the place where the dead body was found lying. (vii) The body of the deceased was found inside her house. (viii) The accused did not at all respond to the quarries made by some witnesses who gathered in his house on the morning in question.as to how his wife got killed on the night in question. ix) There was no evidence to show that any person other than the accused was there in his house on the night aforesaid. 65. (viii) The accused did not at all respond to the quarries made by some witnesses who gathered in his house on the morning in question.as to how his wife got killed on the night in question. ix) There was no evidence to show that any person other than the accused was there in his house on the night aforesaid. 65. The above well established extremely incriminating circumstances when read alongside the fact that on the night aforesaid the accused was in his house or at least around the time when his wife was brutally killed as well as his inability to prove the plea of alibi and so also the plea that on the night in question, his house was burgled by some miscreants, there cannot be an escape from the conclusion that the circumstances which prosecution has established unmistakably form a chain of events, without any break anywhere. 66. Such a chain of events unerringly leads one to the sole and lone conclusion that the accused and none else killed his wife on the night intervening 2nd and 4th January 2005. Such revelations also demonstrate that theory of innocence of the accused is wholly incompatible with the conclusion which one could arrived at from the circumstances which are so firmly established by the prosecution side in the case under consideration. 67. In this connection, we may note the decision of Hon’ble Court of India rendered in the case of Padala Verra Reddy Vs State of AP and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 79 . 67. In this connection, we may note the decision of Hon’ble Court of India rendered in the case of Padala Verra Reddy Vs State of AP and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 79 . In the case of Padala Verra Reddy (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India opined that when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (a) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (b) Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused, (c) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escaped from conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else and (d) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be completed and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of accused but should be in consistent with his innocence. 68. The tests so enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stand fully satisfied in our instant case as has been demonstrated by our foregoing discussion. 69. Above being the position, we are of clear opinion that prosecution has established the charge brought against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the judgment, impugned, invites no interference from this Court of Appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on affirming the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court. 70. Return the LCR. 71. In view of the provision prescribed by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. the victim or his/her dependents are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and in the light of our discussions, made in Criminal Appeal No.93(J)/2005 (disposed on 22.12.2011), with regard to the victim compensation as provided by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C., we make the following directions:- (a). As an interim measure an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited by the State Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Kokrajhar District within a period of two months from this date. As an interim measure an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited by the State Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Kokrajhar District within a period of two months from this date. The District Legal Services Authority, on receipt of the said money, shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whether, there is dependent(s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of death of the deceased and if such dependant(s) or legal representative(s) need any rehabilitation. (b). Upon such enquiry, if it is found that the dependent(s), if any, need rehabilitation, then the District Legal Service Authority shall initially release the said interim amount and thereafter direct payment of adequate compensation, as may be prescribed by the scheme to be prepared by the State Government. (c). It is made clear that if the District Legal Services Authority, after due enquiry, arrives at the findings that there is no dependent(s) or that the dependant(s) of the deceased/victim does not required any rehabilitation, then the District Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/- without delay, in favour of the State Government. 72. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor and the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, for doing the needful. However, before we could put such testimonies which are said to be the basis of those circumstances to test, we find it necessary to focus our attention on certain alleged infirmities, pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant during the course of argument. Such an exercise becomes totally unavoidable since the truth or otherwise of those infirmities appears to have huge implications on the out-come present case. _____________