JUDGMENT Dr. Indira Shah, J. 1. The judgment and order, dated 21.11.2009, passed, by learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions Case No. 120/2006, convicting the accused-appellant, under Section 302 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) and, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3(three) months, stand challenged in this appeal. The prosecution's case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: (i) Joinofa Khatun (since deceased) was married, on 05.02.2006, to accused-appellant, Rajab Ali, she being his second wife. On 07.05.2006, at about 10 am, i.e., barely after three months of her marriage, Joinofa's dead body was found lying on the bank of river Brahmaputra. PW 3, Md. Hussain Ali, father of Joinofa, having come to know about the death of his daughter, Joinofa, lodged a written Ejahar, on 07.05.2006, at Mayong Police Station, alleging to the effect, inter alia, that his daughter, Joinofa, had been married to Rajab Ali on 05.02.2006 and his daughter's dead body had been found lying, on 07.05.2006, at about 10 am, on the bank of river Brahmaputra, with her neck found fastened by a piece of cloth and that he (informant) suspected that Rajab Ali, (i.e., the accused-appellant), besides three others, named in the Ejahar, had killed Joinofa in a well planned manner. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, FIR), Mayong Police Station Case No. 26/2006, under Sections 302/34 IPC, was registered against the present appellant and three others, who had been named in the FIR. (ii) During investigation, police visited the place, where the dead body had been found, held inquest over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination. As the accused was not found at his home, people started looking for him and, having learnt that the accused had been taking shelter in the house of Abdul Khaleque (CW 12), many of his co-villagers went to the house of Abdul Khaleque and, having found the accused Rajab Ali present there, questioned him about the death of his wife. Responding to the queries, so made, the accused confessed to have killed his wife. Responding to the queries, so made, the accused confessed to have killed his wife. This apart, mother of the accused (PW 11) told that the accused had taken Joinofa with him to her parental house about three weeks ago, but according to the informant (PW 3), father of Joinofa, the said deceased had not been brought to his house from the house of the accused. The accused was accordingly handed over to the police. Having completed the investigation, police submitted charge sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused-appellant alone. 2. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302 IPC, was framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. Prosecution, in support of its case, has examined altogether 11(eleven) witnesses. The learned trial Court also examined 12(twelve) witnesses as Court Witnesses. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. The accused, Rajab Ali, was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that the accused had left Joinofa at her parental house before going for work. The accused also denied that he had made a confession, which was alleged to have been made by him. 4. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, the 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 Mr. M.B.U. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing as amicus curiae, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional PP appearing on behalf of the State of Assam. 6. Let us, first, consider the evidence of Dr. ATM Eusuf (P.W. 2), who had, on 08.05.2006, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Joinofa Khatun. The findings of PW 2 were as follows:- External Appearance: A stout female dead body of an young woman of 18 years old. Rigor mortis is present. Both eyes are closed and mouth remained half opened. Sign of bleeding present in the right eye. Fine froth are seen in the right angle of the mouth. An ecchymosis is present on the back of the right side, of the chest. Fracture of cervical bone also present. Rigor mortis is present. Both eyes are closed and mouth remained half opened. Sign of bleeding present in the right eye. Fine froth are seen in the right angle of the mouth. An ecchymosis is present on the back of the right side, of the chest. Fracture of cervical bone also present. A circular deep legation mark is present on the neck. Parchmentization absent on neck dissection. Sign of multiple abrasions also present on the right leg. A continuous circular legation mark present on the neck. Parchmentization present on neck dissection. Thorax (1) Walls, ribs and cartilages: healthy: (2) Pleurae: congested. (3) Larynx and trachea: congested. (4) Right lung, left lung, pericardium: congested. (5) Heart: empty. (6) Vessels: congested. Abdomen (1) Walls, peritoneum: healthy. (2) Mouth, pharynx, esophagus: healthy. Fine forth present in the mouth and nostrils. (3) Stomach and its contents: Food matter with water present. (4) Small intestine and its contents: Partially digested food matter present. (5) Large intestine and its contents: Faucal matter present. Cranium and Spinal Canal (1) Scalp, skull, vertebrae: healthy. (2) Membrane, brain and spinal cord: congested food. (3) Liver, spleen, kidneys: slightly congested. (4) Bladder: empty. (5) Organs of generation: healthy, non pregnant uterus. More detailed description of injury or disease: (1) Homicidal hanging is just before death, i.e. ante-mortem. (2) No sign of disease or deformity is present. 7. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 2), the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of homicidal hanging or asphyxia by deep ligation of her neck. In his cross examination, the doctor (PW 2) has deposed that the hanging was ante mortem, the same was homicidal and not suicidal. Neither the findings of the doctor nor his opinion, with regard to the cause of death, has been in dispute at the trial. This apart, we, too, do not notice anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the evidence given by PW 2. We, therefore, hold that Joinofa sustained injuries as described by the doctor (PW 2) and that Joinofa died due to asphyxia, which resulted from the injuries so sustained, and that her death was, thus, homicidal. 8. This apart, we, too, do not notice anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the evidence given by PW 2. We, therefore, hold that Joinofa sustained injuries as described by the doctor (PW 2) and that Joinofa died due to asphyxia, which resulted from the injuries so sustained, and that her death was, thus, homicidal. 8. Bearing in mind that Joinofa met homicidal death, as described hereinabove, when we come to the evidence of PW 1, we notice that, according to his evidence, he knew Joinofa, who was second wife of the accused, and, on hearing that a dead body had been found by the side of the river Brahmaputra, he went to see the dead body and, at that time, police party also came there and, upon enquiry made by the police, he informed the police that he could recognize the dead body and that the said dead body was of the wife of Rajab Ali, (i.e., the accused). On being enquired by the police if he (PW 1) could furnish the particulars of the father of the deceased, PW 1 informed the police that she was daughter of Hussain Ali (PW 3), a neighbour of PW 1. It is in the evidence of PW 1 that he saw a piece of cloth around the neck of Joinofa and it appeared as if her neck was fastened by the said piece of cloth. 9. The evidence, so given by PW 1, as described above, has gone wholly unchallenged by the defence. It is, therefore, not difficult to conclude, and has rightly been concluded by the learned trial Court, that Joinofa's dead body was found, on 07.05.2006, with a piece of cloth fastened around her neck. Coupled with this, the medical evidence on record shows that it was because of asphyxia, caused as a result of homicidal hanging, or asphyxia, by deep legation of neck, that Joinofa died. 10. Coupled with this, the medical evidence on record shows that it was because of asphyxia, caused as a result of homicidal hanging, or asphyxia, by deep legation of neck, that Joinofa died. 10. So far as the informant (PW 3), father of the deceased, is concerned, his evidence is to the effect that after marriage, the accused very often used to assault Joinofa and, therefore, PW 3, once, took her to his house and let her stay there, but the accused came there and assuring him (PW 3) that he (accused) would not, in future, assault Joinofa, took her back to her matrimonial house and, a few days later, he (PW 3) received information from his co-villagers that Joinofa's dead body had been found lying by the side of the river Brahmaputra, whereupon he (PW 3) lodged the FIR and went to the place, where the said dead body had been found and saw that a saree was fastened around her neck. As regards the accused, PW 3 has deposed that he was told by the co-villagers that the accused had gone to Chatabori, wherefrom the accused was brought and handed over to police. 11. What is extremely important to note, in the evidence of PW 3, is that according to him, he had gone to the house of the accused and he was informed by the mother of the accused (PW 11) that a week before the incident, accused had gone out of his house with his wife Joinofa, but did not return home. 12. Except offering suggestion to PW 3, there was no effective cross-examination to show that what he had deposed was untrue or false. In fact, it was also not disputed by the defence, while cross-examining PW 3, that the mother of the accused had informed him (PW 3) that about a week before the incident, the accused had gone out with his wife, Joinofa, and did not return. Though a suggestion was offered to PW 3 that his daughter had gone to her parental house (i.e., the house of PW 3) and that from there, she had gone out and, thereafter, her dead body had been found, this suggestion was denied by PW 3. Though a suggestion was offered to PW 3 that his daughter had gone to her parental house (i.e., the house of PW 3) and that from there, she had gone out and, thereafter, her dead body had been found, this suggestion was denied by PW 3. The suggestion, so offered to PW 3, has, thus, remained a mere suggestion inasmuch as there is no evidence on record probablising, far less proving, that Joinofa had gone to her parental house as suggested to PW 3 by the defence. 13. The evidence of PW 7 is also relevant in the sense that his evidence is that when he learnt that the accused had been absconding, he informed his co-villagers that he had seen the accused at Beloguri and that he (PW 7) had come to know that the accused had been taking shelter at the house of Abdul Khaleque (CW 12). 14. Close on the heels of the evidence, which we have pointed out above, is the evidence of PW 11, mother of the accused, whose evidence is that the accused had left his home taking with him his wife, Joinofa, to her parental home and did not return thereafter and that after about 13 days, dead body of Joinofa was found lying by the side of the river Brahmaputra. 15. When the evidence of PW 11 is considered in the light of the evidence of PW 3, it clearly transpires that the accused had, indeed, left his house taking along with him his wife, Joinofa, on the pretext of taking her to her parental house, but the accused did not take Joinofa to her parental house and, after quite a few days, Joinofa's dead body was found lying on the bank of river Brahmaputra, her neck fastened by a piece of cloth. 16. Though the accused has claimed, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had left the said deceased at her parental house, there is no evidence to support his claim that the accused had left Joinofa at her parental house. Moreover, the evidence of PW 3, which has remained unshaken, also shows that the accused, soon after his marriage with Joinofa, had assaulted her and Joinofa had to stay, for some time, at her parental house, but, thereafter, the accused brought her back to her matrimonial house promising not to assault her again. 17. Moreover, the evidence of PW 3, which has remained unshaken, also shows that the accused, soon after his marriage with Joinofa, had assaulted her and Joinofa had to stay, for some time, at her parental house, but, thereafter, the accused brought her back to her matrimonial house promising not to assault her again. 17. Turning to the evidence of CW 12 (Abdul Khaleque), it transpires that, according to him, the accused came to his agricultural field/farm house at about 04.30 pm and told CW 12 that he wanted to work there and C.W. 12 allowed the accused to stay at his house. It is in the evidence of CW 12 that when the VDP President arrived at his house, they found the accused staying at the house of CW 12 and the accused was, then, taken by the VDP President. 18. Though Hussain Ali (P.W. 3), Abdul Kuddush (P.W. 6), Abdul Awal (P.W. 7), Raju Bhagawati (C.W. 1), Pradip Saikia (C.W. 7), Mridul Saikia (C.W. 8) and Deep Saikia (C.W. 9) have deposed that the accused made a confession, when they searched out the accused, the fact remains that PW 7 has deposed, in his cross examination, that there was some assault on accused Rajab Ali. 19. It is not discernible from the evidence on record as to whether the assault on the accused had taken place before the accused had made the confession, or after the accused made the confession. Hence, the possibility of the accused having been assaulted before making the confession cannot be ruled out. Further-more, if the accused had been absconding, as the prosecution sought to establish, there was no reason for the accused to make the confession. There is, thus, nothing in the evidence on record to show that the accused had voluntarily made any confession. In fact, the accused has denied, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had made any confession. 20. Be that as it may, what crystallizes from the above discussion is that there is no direct evidence proving the accused as the person, who had killed his wife. In fact, the accused has denied, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had made any confession. 20. Be that as it may, what crystallizes from the above discussion is that there is no direct evidence proving the accused as the person, who had killed his wife. The incriminating circumstances, however, which surfaced against the accused, are as follows:- (i) The deceased was the second wife of the accused and was found dead within 3(three) months of her marriage with the accused; (ii) After marriage with the accused, the deceased was subjected to assault for which she was taken by her father to her parental home and, thereafter, the accused took her back to his house with assurance that he would not assault her in future; (iii) The death of the deceased was homicidal and caused due to ante-mortem hanging; (iv) Taking the deceased with him, the accused left his house on the pretext that he would be going to the house of his father-in-law, whereas he, thereafter, never visited the house of the father of the deceased; (v) The accused was found absconding, when the dead body was recovered; (vi) The accused told P.W. 8 that he killed his wife, because he had illicit relationship with another woman, which was not tolerated by the deceased; (vii) The accused has not given any explanation as to who else might have caused the death of his wife or where did he leave his wife, Joinofa, after he (accused) left his house. 21. The law, with regard to the circumstantial evidence, is more than amply established. The circumstances relied upon shall not only be in consistent with the guilt of the accused, but shall be in consistent with every hypothesis of his innocence. 22. In the case of Kishore Chanda Vs. Himachal Pradesh ( AIR 1990 SC 2140 ), the Supreme Court observed as follows:- An unambiguous Extra Judicial Confession possesses a high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence, it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. 22. In the case of Kishore Chanda Vs. Himachal Pradesh ( AIR 1990 SC 2140 ), the Supreme Court observed as follows:- An unambiguous Extra Judicial Confession possesses a high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence, it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. But in the process of the proof of the alleged confession, the Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary one and does not appear to be the result of incumbent, threat of promise envisaged under section 24 of the evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in auspicious circumstances to circumvent sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the Extra Judicial Confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For, this purpose, the Court must scrutinize all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Extra Judicial Confession is found to be voluntary can be relied upon by the Court along with other Evidence on record, Therefore, even the Extra Judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the Evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made and the circumstance in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. Sometimes, it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason, the law insists on recording the statement by a Judicial Magistrate after administering all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as Evidence against him. 23. Sometimes, it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason, the law insists on recording the statement by a Judicial Magistrate after administering all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as Evidence against him. 23. Having considered the circumstances, which appear against the accused, we are clearly of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the accused has been proved to have been seen last in the company of his wife, Joinofa, and though he left his house on the pretext of taking Joinofa to her parental house, he did not take her to her parental house and it was within the special knowledge of the accused alone as to where he parted company with Joinofa. The explanation, offered by the accused that he had left Joinofa at the house of her parents, has been found to be false and the accused has offered no further explanation. 24. Coupled with the above, when we consider the relationship between the accused, on the one hand, and the said deceased, on the other, it becomes abundantly clear that theirs was a relationship, which was far from cordial so much so that she had been assaulted by the accused and left at her parental house, we are clearly of the view that the evidence on record unerringly points to the accused as the person, who had intentionally caused death of his wife, Joinofa, and committed thereby offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 25. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we see no merit in this appeal. The conviction of the accused-appellant does not, therefore, call for any interference nor does the sentence, passed against him, require any interference. 26. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal stands dismissed. 27. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his valuable assistance rendered to the Court. Send back the LCR.