Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1056 (GAU)

Sahanur Ali v. State of Assam

2015-08-19

M.R.PATHAK, P.K.SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.03.2014 rendered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta in Session Case No. 112/2012 convicting Sri Sahanur Ali, appellant herein of offences u/s 302/201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), in default, to undergo SI for another 1 (one) year for offence u/s 302 IPC and also sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, SI for another 6 (six) months for the offence u/s 201 IPC. Both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment aforesaid, the appellant, Sri Sahanur Ali (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused person') preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 4. The case, projected by prosecution in the FIR and in subsequent trial, in short, is that one Mustt. Jahura Khatoon, wife of the appellant lodged an FIR on 09.12.2011 with the Officer-In-Charge (in short, OC), Barpeta Police Station alleging that on 08.12.2011 while she was returning home for her job (day labourer), she found her minor son Jahidul not available in the house. 5. According to her, when she left her house to attend her work, she left her son and daughter in the custody of her husband. Not finding her son in the house, she started searching her son but she could not trace him on that day. On the next day i.e. on 09.12.2011, while she was searching her son, suddenly she noticed that dead body of her son was concealed under the rubbish kept in the kitchen of her house. She alleged that taking the advantage of her absence from the house, her husband killed her son and then concealed his dead body under the garbage in the kitchen of her house. 6. She, thereafter, lodged an FIR with police .On receipt of such an FIR, O/C, Barpeta Police Station registered a case vide Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1382/2011 u/s 302/201 IPC and ordered one Munaf Ali (PW 11), S.I. of Police to investigate the case. 6. She, thereafter, lodged an FIR with police .On receipt of such an FIR, O/C, Barpeta Police Station registered a case vide Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1382/2011 u/s 302/201 IPC and ordered one Munaf Ali (PW 11), S.I. of Police to investigate the case. Being so ordered, Sri Ali visited the place of occurrence, conducted an inquest on the dead body, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination. 7. As the investigation progress from stage to stage, the I/O examined the persons, well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case, arrested the accused person, collected the post mortem examination report, did the other things needful and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to face trial. 8. The Magistrate before whom the charge sheet was so laid committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On receipt of the case on commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta transferred the same to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta for disposal in accordance with law. 9. On the receipt of the case on transfer and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta framed charges u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 12 (twelve) witnesses including informant, Medical Officer (in short, 'MO'), who conducted autopsy and the Investigating Officer (in short, 'I/O') of the case. The statement of the accused person was recorded u/s 313 CrPC. The plea of the accused was of total denial. He, however, on being required, declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. 11. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court below was pleased to convict the accused of offences u/s 302/201 IPC and was also pleased to sentence him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. Mr. 11. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court below was pleased to convict the accused of offences u/s 302/201 IPC and was also pleased to sentence him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits that there was no eye witness to the incident in question and as such, the prosecution case is basically founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled law that in a case, based in circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to establish a chain of events unbreakable anywhere which leads to a lone and sole conclusion that the accused, and none else, was the author of the crime in question. 13. However, in the present case, prosecution could not prove any incriminating circumstances, much less its establishing such circumstances which form a chain of events without any break anywhere leading to lone and sole conclusion that the accused and none else was the author of the crime in question. He, therefore, submits this court to set aside the judgment in question and to acquit the accused person of offences, he was charged with, convicted of and punished as aforesaid. 14. In order to give life and blood to his argument aforesaid, the learned Amicus Curiae contends that the prosecution places enormous reliance on the testimony of PW 9, Miss Sajeda Khatun, a girl of 9 (nine) years. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, no reliance on her evidence could have been placed on her evidence since she is a child witness and since she did not utter any word about her having divulged some vital aspects of the case to the PW 1, her mother. 15. The evidence of PW 9 cannot be accepted without any hesitation for other reasons as well. According to PW 9, on the fateful noon, her father sent her to nearby shop to purchase bidi for him. Having so required, she went to the shop aforesaid and returned home sometime thereafter purchasing bidi for his father and having arrived at home, she did not find the accused and her brother in the house. Such evidence cannot be relied on since such evidence finds no concrete support from the testimonies of other witnesses. 16. Having so required, she went to the shop aforesaid and returned home sometime thereafter purchasing bidi for his father and having arrived at home, she did not find the accused and her brother in the house. Such evidence cannot be relied on since such evidence finds no concrete support from the testimonies of other witnesses. 16. Further, the evidence of PW 1 also cannot be accepted for some valid reasons. We have found that though PW 1 claims that she came to know about the accused sending PW 9 to a nearby shop to purchase bidi for him and on her returning home, she (PW 1) did not find the accused and her son in the house, yet, in her evidence, PW 9 did not utter a single word about her narrating such incident to the PW 1 which makes such part of the evidence of PW 1 a hearsay one and as such, no reliance ought to have been placed on the major part of evidence of PW 1. 17. According to learned Amicus Curiae, some very vital aspect of the prosecution case were reported to the IO by the witness and some of the witnesses chose to disclose such information to the court during trial for the first time which makes their evidence unreliable since such evidence suffers from vide commonly called as contradiction. For all those reasons, the learned Amicus Curiae urges this court to set aside the judgment under challenge and to acquit the accused person of offences aforementioned. 18. It is also stated that there is indisputable evidence to show that a quarrel between PW 1 and her immediate neighbours had strained their relationship to a great extent and such quarrel was on the ownership of a plot of land. What is worse, those neighbours had even threatened on occasions more than one to liquidate the entire family of PW 1. Therefore, there is huge possibility of those people killing the son of PW 1 on the eventful day. 19. Since the case in question is based on circumstantial evidence and since the one more hypothesis leading to the death of son of PW 1 is discernible from the evidence on record, in view of law laid down in respect of cases, based on circumstantial evidence, the accused could not have been convicted of the offences aforesaid. 19. Since the case in question is based on circumstantial evidence and since the one more hypothesis leading to the death of son of PW 1 is discernible from the evidence on record, in view of law laid down in respect of cases, based on circumstantial evidence, the accused could not have been convicted of the offences aforesaid. He, therefore, submits this court to set aside the judgment in question and to acquit the accused person of offences, he was charged with, convicted of and punished as aforesaid. 20. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P., Ms. S. Jahan submits that though the case is based on circumstances alone, circumstances, proved by prosecution unmistakably form a chain of events and such chain of events leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused was the author of the crime in question. Being so, the claim of the accused person that the prosecution could not meet the test, fixed for a case based on circumstantial evidence is without any substance. 21. It has also been stated that all incriminating circumstances were brought to the notice of the accused person while he was being examined u/s 313 CrPC. But the accused person could not offer any explanation to any of the incriminating circumstances stared direct at him. Such inability on the part of the accused person to explain those incriminating circumstances again throws their weight behind the allegation levelled against the accused person. 22. According to learned Addl. P.P. there is indisputable evidence on record to show that the accused person had absconded soon after the alleged incident. Though the absconding of the accused alone cannot establish the allegation levelled against the accused person, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the absconding of the accused person lends more and more support to the prosecution claim that the accused had killed the deceased on the eventful day and then concealed his dead body beneath the garbage in the kitchen of the house. 23. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the judgment under challenge and the evidence on record. But before we could proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. He is Dr. Nurul Islam and was examined as PW 12. 23. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the judgment under challenge and the evidence on record. But before we could proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. He is Dr. Nurul Islam and was examined as PW 12. According to him, on 09.12.2011, he was posted at Barpeta Civil Hospital. On that day, he performed post mortem examination over the dead body of one Jahidul Islam aged about 6 (six) years and found the following :- "Bleeding per nose and mouth seen. Rigor mortis present. Both eyes are closed. Blackish necking mark around the neck seen distinctly. Necking mark around the neck is visible distinctly. The Doctor opined that death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation necking ante mortem. The Doctor proved the post-mortem examination report as Ext. 5 and Ext. 5(1) is his signature." 24. The evidence of the Doctor remains nearly uncontroverted and therefore his evidence coupled with the post mortem examination report (Ext. 5) and inquest report (Ext. 2) establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and such death was occasioned by asphyxia which was caused by strangulation on or about 08.12.2011. 25. So situated, let us see who had occasioned the homicidal death of the infant on the date aforementioned. We have found that PW 9, Smt. Sajidul Khatoon, is the prime prosecution witness and have also found that she was a girl of about 9 (nine) years of age on the date when her evidence was recorded. According to her, informant Jahura Khatoon (PW 1) is her mother and the accused is her step father. On the fateful day, her mother left for job leaving PW 9, her brother and the accused/husband in the house. 26. On that day towards noon, her father, sent her to nearby shop to purchase bidi for him. When she left her house to purchase bidi for her step father, the deceased and the accused was in the house. She returned home sometime thereafter but she found both of them absent in the house. She could not trace any of them though she made a vigorous search for them. Next day, the body of her brother was found beneath the garbage kept in the kitchen. She returned home sometime thereafter but she found both of them absent in the house. She could not trace any of them though she made a vigorous search for them. Next day, the body of her brother was found beneath the garbage kept in the kitchen. She saw the mark of strangulation on the neck of the deceased. 27. In her cross-examination, she had confirmed that she went to the shop of one Samad Ali to purchase bidi there-from for her father. She further admitted that the house of one Hamid was near their house with whom they had some disputes since they had been trying to evict them from the place where they were residing since before the alleged incident. 28. It may be noted here that before recording the evidence of PW 9, she was questioned by the court to ascertain her maturity of mind and from such examination, the learned court below formed an opinion that PW 9 (nine), a girl of 9 years, attained maturity of mind since she could give rational answer the questions put to her. Situation being such, in our opinion, her evidence could be relied on, if she is found otherwise trustworthy. 29. It is in this backdrop, let us consider the evidence of another important witness who is none other than the mother of the victim namely, Jahura Khatoon who was examined as PW 1. According to PW 1, the accused is her 2nd husband but she had 2 (two) children from her first marriage who are PW 9 and the deceased. After being divorced by her former husband, she started living in a small plot of land erecting house thereon. In the meantime, she married the accused person and started to live with him as husband and wife in her own house. 30. According to her, both of them worked as daily wage earners. On the date of the incident, she left her home to attend her duty leaving her 2 (two) children in her house in the custody of the accused person. She returned home at about 4 pm and on returning home, she did not find the accused in her house nor could she find the victim there. On the date of the incident, she left her home to attend her duty leaving her 2 (two) children in her house in the custody of the accused person. She returned home at about 4 pm and on returning home, she did not find the accused in her house nor could she find the victim there. When she asked her daughter (PW 9) as to whereabouts of the accused and the deceased, she replied that around the noon, the accused had sent her to purchase bidi for him and on returning home from the shop, she did not find the accused or her brother, Jahidul Islam in the house. 31. On getting such information, PW 1 started searching her son but when she could not trace him out, she started raising hue and cry. Since the accused was not in his house, she suspected that the accused might have taken the boy to somewhere. Since the boy could not be traced on the fateful day, such search was carried out next day as well. In the meantime, she discovered the body of the boy being concealed under the garbage kept in the kitchen of the house. She reported the matter to the police in writing which she proved as Ext. 1. 32. Receiving such an FIR, police swung into action. According to her, since the date of the her marriage with the accused till the date of the incident, the accused stayed with PW 1 in her house. It is also in her evidence that only one day prior to the incident, the accused threatened that he would kill both the children of the PW 1. In cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that she did not see her son being killed by the accused person. In her cross-examination, she further admitted that her neighbour, namely Hamid Ali and his family members had also threatened that they would finish off her and her family. 33. PW 3, Musstt. Sana Bhanu deposes that on the fateful day in the morning, she along with PW 1 went to the place of work. The victim, his sister and the accused were at home when PW 1 left the house for duty. On her return from work at about 4 pm, she did not find the accused and her son Jahidul in the house. They made a search for those persons but in vain. The victim, his sister and the accused were at home when PW 1 left the house for duty. On her return from work at about 4 pm, she did not find the accused and her son Jahidul in the house. They made a search for those persons but in vain. The following day in the morning, she came to the house of PW 1 to prepare meal and for that purpose, she entered into the kitchen of PW 1. 34. On entering the kitchen, she noticed the body of the victim being concealed under the garbage kept in the kitchen. The matter was immediately informed to the villagers as well as police. Since the accused was found absent in the house since the time of disappearance of the victim, it was suspected that he had killed the boy aforesaid and concealed his dead body under the garbage in the kitchen. 35. In her cross-examination, she confirmed that she resided at a place very close to the house of PW 1. In her cross-examination, she further states that PW 1 was at loggerhead with Hamid, her neighbour, over some family disputes since before the incident in question. In her cross-examination further reveals that after their marriage, the accused used to stay in the house of PW 1. 36. PW 4, Sri Abdul Rahim also deposes in a tune very similar to the evidence rendered by PW 3 since he is also found saying that son of PW 1 had gone missing from the day aforementioned and his dead body was discovered next day in the kitchen where it was concealed under the garbage. He noticed mark of strangulation on the neck of the ill-fated boy. It is also in her evidence that the accused fled the scene soon after the incident in question. 37. In his evidence, PW 2, Sri Nurul Islam deposes that one day in the morning PW 1 requested him to announce over the microphone about her son going missing since previous day. Being so requested, he made the announcement. On the same day at about 4 pm, the body of the deceased was found beneath the garbage kept in the kitchen of the PW 1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know who killed the victim. 38. Being so requested, he made the announcement. On the same day at about 4 pm, the body of the deceased was found beneath the garbage kept in the kitchen of the PW 1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know who killed the victim. 38. PW 6, Sri Badsha Miah disposes that one day, he got the information about the incident which took place in the house of the PW 1. Being so informed, he went to the house of PW 1 and saw many persons to gather in the house of PW 1. He came to know from PW 9 that on the aforesaid date in the noon, her father sent her to nearby shop to purchase bidi from him. She went to such shop to purchase bidi for her father but returning home she did not find her bother or her father in the house. 39. According to PW 6, the body of the victim was found beneath the garbage kept in the kitchen of the house of PW 1 on the next day of the incident. He also came to know from Jahura Khatoon (PW 1) as well as Sajeda Khatun (PW 9) that the accused killed the victim on the previous day when PW 1 left for her job leaving her children in the custody of the accused person. 40. According to him, on being informed in writing, police came to the PO , conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared a report in that connection which he proved as Ext. 2. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know whether the accused and the PW 1 were in good relationship during the time under consideration. He also admitted that he did not witness the victim being killed by the accused person. We have found the evidence of PW 5 to be very similar to the evidence rendered by other PWs, particularly, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6. 41. PW 7, Sri Abdul Hussain deposes that one day, he went to the house of PW 1 and found the body of the son of the PW 1 being covered with cloths. In that connection, police conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared a report which he proved as Ext. 2. He also admitted that he did not know who killed the son of PW 1. 42. In that connection, police conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared a report which he proved as Ext. 2. He also admitted that he did not know who killed the son of PW 1. 42. PW 8, Sri Sahajan Ali deposes that one day, he came to know that the accused had killed his minor son. On arriving at the PO, he found the accused in the custody of police. The accused confessed to have killed the victim on the day in question. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not notice any injury mark on the dead body. 43. PW 10, Anwara Hussain is the former husband of PW 1. According to him, he married PW 1 and out of their wedlock, two children were born to them and thereafter, he divorced the PW 1. Subsequently, his former wife started to live with the accused person as husband and wife. On being informed about the death of his son, he went to the house of PW 1 and noticed mark of strangulation on the neck of the victim. 44. PW 11, Sri Munaf Ali is the SI of Police and the IO of the case. According to him, on 09.12.2011, he was posted at Barpeta Police Station as SI of Police. On that day, the then OC, Barpeta Police Station received an FIR in connection with the case aforementioned. On the receipt of such an FIR, a case was registered and he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, he went to the place of occurrence along with the Executive Magistrate and found the body of a boy, aged about 6 (six) years, beneath the garbage kept in the kitchen of the PW 1. 45. He noticed mark of strangulation on the neck of the deceased. The Magistrate accompanying him, conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared a report in that connection. As the investigation progressed, he prepared a sketch map of the PO and also examined the persons well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination. In course of investigation, he arrested the accused person and sent him to judicial custody for detention. 46. As the investigation progressed, he prepared a sketch map of the PO and also examined the persons well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination. In course of investigation, he arrested the accused person and sent him to judicial custody for detention. 46. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 302/201 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to stand trial. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the owner of the shop wherefrom PW 9 reportedly purchased bidi on the eventful noon on being reportedly required by the accused person was not examined by him as one of the witnesses in the case aforementioned. 47. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence makes out the allegations against the accused person. We have already found from the evidence of PW 9 that on the fateful day, she (PW 9) along with her bother since deceased and father were in the house. But her father sent her to nearby shop to purchase bidi for him. Returning there-from, she did not find either the deceased or the accused person. Next day, the body of the deceased was found concealed beneath the garbage kept in their kitchen. 48. On further perusal of the evidence of PW 1 it is found that on the fateful day, leaving her two children in the custody of the accused person, she left her house to attend her duty. On returning home, she did not find her son and her husband in the house. She came to know from her daughter, PW 9 that on that day, her husband sent her (PW 9) to nearby shop to purchase bidi for him. When she returned home, PW 9 didn't find her father (accused) or her brother (deceased) in the house. 49. Her evidence again reveals that though she made an intensive search for her missing son, they could not trace out him till the next day. According to her, on the next day, the body of her son was found beneath the garbage in the kitchen. The evidence of PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 supports such contention of PW 1. According to her, on the next day, the body of her son was found beneath the garbage in the kitchen. The evidence of PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 supports such contention of PW 1. There is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the testimonies, so tendered by PW 1, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 though they were subjected to detail cross-examination. 50. The evidence of other witnesses particularly, PW 2, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 10 also reveals that the victim had gone missing on and from 08.01.2012 and his body was found beneath the garbage in the kitchen of PW 1 on the next day. The evidence of the IO (PW 11) also confirms that they found the body of the deceased beneath the garbage kept in the kitchen on 09.12.2011. 51. On analysis of the evidence on record including the evidence of the informant, Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, we have found that the prosecution has established some circumstances beyond any shadow of doubt - They are :- (i) On the fateful day, PW 1 left her house leaving her daughter, ill-fated son and the accused in her house, (ii) On that day towards the noon, the accused sent PW 9 (daughter of PW 1) to a nearby shop to purchase bidi for him, (iii) On returning home after purchasing bidi for accused person, PW 9 did not find either his brother or his step father in the house, (iv) She made a search for them but in vain, (v) PW 1 (mother) returned home in the afternoon at about 4 pm and did not find her son and her 2nd husband in the house, (vi) Though she (PW 1) searched both of them, same yielded no result, (vii) Soon after the incident, the accused went underground till he was arrested on 19.01.2012, (viii) Next day, the body of the son of PW 1 was found concealed beneath the garbage in the kitchen of PW 1, (ix) Mark of injury was noticed on the neck of the deceased, (x) The Doctor opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation, (xi) The accused threatened to kill PW 1 and her children only one day prior to the incident under consideration. 52. 52. When all those circumstances are read together, it would appear more than clear that such circumstances form a chain of events unbreakable anywhere leading to lone and sole conclusion that the accused and none else had killed the son of PW 1 on the fateful day in the ill-fated house and having killed him, he concealed the body of the victim beneath the garbage in the kitchen of the house of PW 1 and then absconded till he was arrested subsequently. In our considered opinion, any other hypothesis is wholly incompatible with the evidence on record. 53. It is worth noting that all those proved highly incriminating circumstances were brought to the notice of the accused person soliciting his explanation thereto. He, however, instead of offering plausible explanation to those profoundly incriminating circumstances, he doled out a plea that he is innocent. Such plea of innocence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, hardly offer any explanation to those incriminating circumstances. 54. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Mubar v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 2 SCC 748 held that when the accused fails to offer explanation to the incriminating circumstances which emerge during trial, such failure, on the part of the accused person, may provide the prosecution with missing link, if any, in its case putting such a case on more and more firm footing. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- "24. It is obligatory on the part of the accused, while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation, even in a case of circumstantial evidence, so to decide, whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. The aforesaid judgment has been approved and followed in Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748 . (See also: The Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali & Ors ., AIR 1983 SC 1225 )." 55. The aforesaid judgment has been approved and followed in Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748 . (See also: The Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali & Ors ., AIR 1983 SC 1225 )." 55. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munna Kumar Upadhyay @ Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174 , (2012) 6 SCC 174 as well as in Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 310 : similar view has been rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Anish v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 23rd May, 2014. The relevant part is reproduced below:- "18. As stated earlier, it is proved by overwhelming evidence and is not even disputed by the appellant that deceased Saira was inflicted injuries inside the matrimonial home (of the appellant and the deceased). Initially, the appellant was completely silent as to how his deceased wife suffered injuries. He told the IO that he would make a statement later on only when his relations would arrive. As we have pointed out earlier, in cross-examination of the IO and even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has not given the details of the intruders. From the appellant's conduct in not disclosing to the IO as to how his deceased wife suffered fatal injuries, there was a lurking doubt even at that very time that it was only the appellant who was responsible for causing the injuries unless something material was really brought out by the appellant. Nothing prevented the appellant to have disclosed about the incident immediately when the police reached the spot that the injuries were inflicted on his deceased wife by two unknown intruders. There was no indication or giveaway to show the presence of third parties who intentionally targeted the deceased. All these facts taken together, i.e. non-disclosure of the information about the incident to the police, not giving the details of the two intruders even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. etc. would really show that the explanation given by the appellant was false which would become an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence in view of Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 310 . 19. would really show that the explanation given by the appellant was false which would become an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence in view of Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 310 . 19. In Munna Kumar Upadhyay @ Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174 , it was reiterated that if the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court can draw an adverse inference against him. In para 76 of the report, the Supreme Court observed as under:- "76. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the court can draw an adverse inference against him. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the accused has not only failed to explain his conduct, in the manner in which every person of normal prudence would be expected to explain but had even given incorrect and false answers. In the present case, the Court not only draws an adverse inference, but such conduct of the accused would also tilt the case in favour of the prosecution." 56. We have found that the decision aforementioned can very well be applied in the case in hand and therefore, the inability of the accused to offer explanation to those incriminating circumstances, in our opinion, again throws its weight behind the allegation of the prosecution that the accused, and none else, had killed the deceased on the noon aforesaid and then concealed his dead body beneath the garbage in the kitchen of the ill-fated house. 57. In view of what we have discussed hereinbefore and what have emerged there-from, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges u/s 302/201 IPC and as such, the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused under the aforesaid provisions of law deserves no interference. 58. Accordingly, the appeal, being found devoid of merit, is dismissed. 59. We deeply appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the present appeal. We, therefore, order the State Legal Services Authority to pay him Rs. 7500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) as being his professional fees within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 60. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the present appeal. We, therefore, order the State Legal Services Authority to pay him Rs. 7500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) as being his professional fees within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 60. Return the LCR.