JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 22-02-2008, passed, by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Sessions Case No. 11 (DM) 2006, convicting the accused-appellant, under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The case of the prosecution, as surfaced at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: Deceased Mergena Munda was the wife of the accused Herman Tirky @ Herman Orang. Katrina Kheruwa (PW2) used to live in the same residential quarter, at Nonaipara Tea Estate, wherein lived Mergena Munda (since deceased). On 10-05-2005, while Mergena Munda was taking tea in the house of PW2, the accused, too, came there to have his tea. While PW2 was making tea for the accused, the accused, suddenly, ran away. Though PW2 had not noticed as to what the accused had done to Mergena Munda, but when the accused fled away, PW2 noticed that Mergena Munda had sustained injury and she was dead. On hue and cry being raised from the house of PW2, many of the neighbours of PW2, including PW1, who is younger brother of the said deceased, came and, on coming to know about the occurrence, he (PW1) lodged a written Ejahar at Paneri Police Station alleging to the effect, inter alia, that while Mergena Munda was sitting at the verandah of the house of PW2 and having her tea, accused went there with a knife, stabbed her to death and ran away. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Paneri Police Station Case No. 48 of 2005, under Section 302 IPC, was registered against the present accused-appellant. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body of Mergena Munda, which was also subjected to post mortem examination. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused aforementioned. 2. At the trial, when a charge was framed under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused aforementioned. 2. At the trial, when a charge was framed under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. In his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which he was alleged to have committed, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 4. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Amicus Curiae, and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. While considering the present appeal, what may be borne in mind is the fact that it is the evidence of PW2 around whose evidence revolves the entire case of the prosecution inasmuch as there is, admittedly, no eye witness to the alleged occurrence of killing of Mergena Munda and the case of the prosecution rests substantially on circumstantial evidence. 7. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove every piece of incriminating circumstances, which the prosecution relies upon. The circumstances, so proved, shall form a complete chain, which shall unerringly point to the accused as the guilty one. The evidence, adduced by the prosecution, shall not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but shall also be inconsistent with every hypothesis of innocence of the accused, meaning thereby that every possible hypothesis of the innocence of the accused has to be ruled out before the circumstantial evidence is relied upon to base conviction of the accused. 8. Bearing in mind the above principles governing proof of an offence by circumstantial evidence, let us, first, consider the evidence of PW2, whose evidence, we may point out, has not been disputed, challenged or assailed by the defence. Her evidence has, thus, gone wholly unchallenged or un-assailed by the defence. 8. Bearing in mind the above principles governing proof of an offence by circumstantial evidence, let us, first, consider the evidence of PW2, whose evidence, we may point out, has not been disputed, challenged or assailed by the defence. Her evidence has, thus, gone wholly unchallenged or un-assailed by the defence. This witness's evidence is that the said deceased was wife of the accused and, on the day of the occurrence, at about 8.00 a.m., while Mergena Munda was taking tea in the house of PW2, the accused also came there for having tea and though she (PW2) did not notice as to what the accused had done, she found that the accused had run away and Mergena Munda was dead with injury, which was bleeding. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that police came and took away Mergena Munda's dead body. 9. In her cross-examination, PW2 has clearly deposed that she had not seen the accused stabbing his wife, Mergena Munda, because she (PW2) was preparing tea. 10. Notwithstanding the fact that PW2 concedes that she had not seen the accused stabbing his wife to death, the evidence of PW2 clearly shows that while Mergena Munda was having her tea, at the house of PW2, the accused, too, came there to have his tea and while PW2 was preparing tea, the accused ran away and Mergena Munda was found by PW2 dead with injury, which was bleeding. The evidence of PW2 does not indicate presence of any person other than the accused, the deceased and PW2. There is also no earthly reason for the accused to run away, had he not been the one, who had stabbed Mergena Munda. If the various pieces of evidence, which PW2 has spoken of, are clubbed together, there remains no room for doubt that it was none, but the accused-appellant, who had stabbed his wife to death. 11. The above inference gets strengthened from the medical evidence on record inasmuch as the doctor (PW 6) has deposed that on 11-05-2005 (i.e., on the following the day of the occurrence), he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Mergena Munda, aged about 25 years, and found as follows: EXTERNAL APPEARANCE: Dead body of an adult female, 25 years approximately, fresh in condition, Rigormortis present, eyes and mouth closed. No discharge from the anus and urethra. No discharge from the anus and urethra. One penetrating wound measuring 2.5 cm x 5 cm in the left para-sternal region at the level of 6th inter costal space and depth into the thorax. CRANIUM AND SPINAL CANAL: Healthy. THORAX: As in column No. 1. Membrane - Incised in left side para-sternal region. Blood collection present in left thoracic cavity. Left lung is incised. Pericardium is incised. Heart is incised. ABDOMEN: Not significant. 12. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 6), the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury sustained, Ext. 3 being the post mortem report. 13. In his cross-examination, the doctor (PW 6) has clarified that the injury on Mergena Munda was inflicted from the front side. Though the doctor, in his cross-examination, has agreed that if somebody falls with great force upon a pointed, firmly erected and steady object, then, such type of injury, as Mergena Munda was found to have sustained, may occur, it needs to be carefully noted that there is no evidence, direct or indirect, to show that Mergena Munda had died, because of fall on a pointed object. The opinion, therefore, which has been given by the doctor that if somebody falls forcefully upon a pointed, firmly erect and steady object, injury, as was found on Mergena Munda's dead body, may occur, is of no assistance to the defence. Far from this, the medical evidence lends credible support to the evidence of PW2 inasmuch as the doctor, as already pointed out above, had found an incised wound on the left para-sternal region and pericardium had been incised. 14. When we turn to the evidence of PW1, we notice that according to his evidence, while he was working in the garden, he heard about the occurrence, he did not find the accused at home, when he reached there, and that he got an Ejahar written by a policeman. The evidence of PW1 is that Mergena Munda was married to the accused and though he claims that the accused had killed Mergena Munda in the house of Katrina Kheruwa (PW2) and that there was injury on the chest of the said deceased, this witness's evidence does not show that he had seen the accused stabbing to death Mergena Munda. 15. 15. What is, however, of paramount importance to note is that the inability of PW1 to give any evidence that it was the accused-appellant, who had stabbed his wife to death, does not take away the wroth and value of the evidence of PW2, whose evidence is simple, consistent, natural, coherent, undisputed and unshaken. 16. Coming to the evidence of PW 3, we notice that according to his evidence, on hearing that the accused had killed his wife, they went to the house of the accused and found the accused absconding; but later on, when villagers caught hold of the accused and the accused admitted that he had murdered his wife. To the same effect is the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 inasmuch as they have also deposed that on being asked, the accused admitted his guilt by stating that he had killed his wife, Mergena Munda, by knife. 17. Suffice it to point out, at this stage, that the evidence, given by PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5, that the accused had admitted to have killed his wife cannot be regarded as voluntarily made extra-judicial confession inasmuch as the evidence of PW 3 shows that the co-villagers of the accused-appellant caught hold of the accused-appellant, questioned him and it was, then, that the accused-appellant allegedly admitted his guilt by saying that he had murdered his wife. 18. What surfaces from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that the prosecution had adduced, with the help of PW 2, credible and convincing evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the one, who had stabbed to death his wife, Mergena Munda. 19. Situated thus, we have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence of murder and we do not find that the sentence, which has been passed against him, calls for any interference. 20. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall stand dismissed. 21. Let the Amicus Curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his valuable assistance rendered to this Court. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed.