JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25/03/2011 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati passed in Sessions Case No. 28(K)/2008 (State of Assam Vs. Priya Nath Das). By the said judgment, the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, R.I. for another one year. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14/08/1998 with the Jalukbari Police Station by PW-2 to the effect that on the previous night at around 1-30 a.m., the accused hacked the deceased with a dao and bhojali (Scimitar) while she was sleeping inside the room. Injuries being inflicted, the deceased became unconscious and fell down. Immediately, she was rushed to hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. It was stated in the FIR by the informant that seeing the condition of the deceased, she was taken to hospital instead of going to Police Station for furnishing information. It was also stated in the FIR that since the public had apprehended the accused, when he tried to run away from the place of occurrence, he also sustained injuries. Thereafter he was handed over to the Police. 3. On the basis of the said FIR, Jalukbari Police Station Case No. 304/98 was registered under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter the I.O. carried out the investigation and on completion of the same, submitted charge sheet under Section 302 IPC. Charge having been framed under the said section, the same was read over to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, trial started. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses and defence also examined two witnesses as DW-1 (accused himself) and DW-2. The statement of the accused appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court having convicted the accused appellant with the sentence as aforesaid, he has preferred this appeal praying for setting aside of the impugned judgment. 5. We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused appellant. We have also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned APP, Assam. We have also perused the entire materials on record including the LCR received from the learned Court below. 6. 5. We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused appellant. We have also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned APP, Assam. We have also perused the entire materials on record including the LCR received from the learned Court below. 6. As it appears from the materials on record including the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused appellant based on the circumstantial evidence. There is no dispute that when the crime was committed, the accused and the deceased were inside the room in question. As the evidence would reveal, the accused is the second husband of the deceased. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased, who in his deposition stated that on the fateful night, his nephew came to his house and informed that the deceased was killed by the accused with a Bhojali dao. 7. He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found his sister i.e. the deceased in a pool of blood. He could notice injuries on her person including the injuries on her head and belly. She was taken to hospital but succumbed to her injuries. Thereafter, the Ext.1 FIR was lodged. He also stated that he Police came to the place of occurrence and the Bhojali dao was recovered (Ext.-2). He also proved the inquest report (Ext.3). 8. PW-2 is the eldest son of the deceased, who in his deposition, narrating the incident stated that while he was sleeping, suddenly he heard alarm from his mother’s room. He immediately rushed to her and asked to open the door. When the door was not opened, he broke open the door and entered the room only to find his mother with a dagger on her belly along with the bleeding injury. Narrating the incident further he stated that his mother was assaulted by the accused before he had entered into the room. However, the accused was still inside the room. When he raised hue and cry, public gathered but nobody came forward in fear of trouble. He further stated that the incident was narrated to his maternal uncle and that his mother was taken to hospital. In the cross examination he stated about the seizure of a dao from the house. 9. PW-3 is a seizure witness. When he raised hue and cry, public gathered but nobody came forward in fear of trouble. He further stated that the incident was narrated to his maternal uncle and that his mother was taken to hospital. In the cross examination he stated about the seizure of a dao from the house. 9. PW-3 is a seizure witness. PW-4 is the I.O. who in his deposition while generally stating about the investigation that was carried out, also stated about the seizure of the dao on being produced by the accused in presence of witnesses (Ext.-2). He also proved his signature therein {Ext. 2(3)}. He categorically stated that the accused was detained by public. While it is true that in the cross examination, he admitted that no dao could be seized but categorically stated that he could seize the bhojali as was produced by the accused. He also stated that the house consisted of only one room. PW-6 is the doctor, who in his deposition stated that the post-mortem was done by one Dr. K.C. Das under his guidance and supervision. He stated that he found 12 No. of injuries on the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination on the neck, abdomen, stomach and forehead. 10. PW-7 is the doctor who had performed the post-mortem examination. He in his deposition narrated the injuries as follows :- “1. One cut injury present on the forehead (transverse), middle part, size 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, frontal bone partly cut. 2. One cut injury present on left cheek, upper part, oblique, size 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 3. One cut injury present on left ear, size 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 4. One cut injury present on the right cheek, middle part, size 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 5. One cut injury present on the right side of the neck upper part size 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 6. One stab injury present on the front of the neck, midline, size 1 cm x 2 cm x Trachial cavity deep. 7. One stab injury present on the left side of the neck, upper part size 1.5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. 8. 6. One stab injury present on the front of the neck, midline, size 1 cm x 2 cm x Trachial cavity deep. 7. One stab injury present on the left side of the neck, upper part size 1.5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. 8. One stab would present on the anterior abdominal wall, left side, 1 cm left from midline and 11 cm below the left nipple size 1 cm x 0.7 cm x abdominal cavity deep and stomach perforated (anterior wall). 9. One stab wound present on the anterior abdominal wall, left side, 5 cm left from midline and 12 cm below the left nipple size 2 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep. 10. One stab would present on the right side of the abdomen size 2 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep situated 16 cm right from midline and 14 cm right and below the right nipple, the liver perforated. 11. One stab would present on the back of the abdomen left side, size 2 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep situated 3 cm left from midvertebral line and 21 cm below the 7th cervical spine. The peritoneum and small intestine perforated. 12. One cut injury on the back of the chest, right side, size 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep situated 2 cm right from midvertebral line and 5 cm right and below the 7th cervical spine”. He also opined thus :- “Opinion : Death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries described, which were antemortem and caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon and homicidal in nature. Approximate time since death 12 to 18 hrs. Ext. 9 is the Post Mortem Examination report wherein Ext. 9(1) is my signatures. My report was concurred by Dr. P.C. Sarma Ext. 9(2) is the signature of Dr. P.C. Sarma. I know his signature. The injuries No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are independently sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course of nature. The injuries sustained by the victim can be caused by weapon like Khukuri marked as M.Ext.1. Along with the dead body I received some documents such as inquest report Ext. 3 wherein Ext. 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) are my signatures, dead body challan Ext. 6 wherein Ext. 6(2) is my signature and Command Certificate Ext. 7 wherein Ext. The injuries sustained by the victim can be caused by weapon like Khukuri marked as M.Ext.1. Along with the dead body I received some documents such as inquest report Ext. 3 wherein Ext. 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) are my signatures, dead body challan Ext. 6 wherein Ext. 6(2) is my signature and Command Certificate Ext. 7 wherein Ext. 7(2) is my signature.” 11. Although the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the defence but no material contradictions could be brought out from what they stated in their examination-in-chief. DW-1 in his deposition referring to the injuries sustained by the deceased stated that both the sons of the deceased had tried to assault her during morning hours and also at about 1-30 a.m. by entering into their room. He stated that they inflicted blow by means of a spear with intention to cause injury on his person but the blow landed on the right side of the neck of the deceased. According to his version, he raised alarms to save the deceased from the hands of the assailants and in the process he also sustained injuries. He further stated that he could snatch away the spear from the assailants in presence of the local persons. According to him, he became unconscious and regain his senses in the Ayurvedic College, Jalukbari, Guwahati. In the cross examination he stated that his wife i.e. the deceased had sustained cut injury on the right side of the neck. 12. DW-2 was examined by the defence, stated in his deposition has stated as to how the deceased was removed by her sons to hospital for treatment. In the cross examination he categorically stated that the accused and the deceased were living together in the same house. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant categorically stated that he did not have any knowledge as to how his wife met with her death. Such a statement was in respect of the following question put to him :- “2. This witness has also stated that regarding the said incident, he submitted Ext.-1 (F.I.R.) at Nagarbera Police Station wherein, Ext. 1(1) is his signature. He further stated that thereafter, police arrived at the place of occurrence and seized one dao from your house vide Ext.-2 (Seizure List) wherein, Ext. 2(1) is his signature. This witness has also stated that regarding the said incident, he submitted Ext.-1 (F.I.R.) at Nagarbera Police Station wherein, Ext. 1(1) is his signature. He further stated that thereafter, police arrived at the place of occurrence and seized one dao from your house vide Ext.-2 (Seizure List) wherein, Ext. 2(1) is his signature. As per his evidence, police also held inquest on the dead body of Dipa Rani who was your second wife and prepared the Inquest Report [Ext.-3] wherein, Ext.- 3(1) is his signature. Do you have anything to say in this connection? 13. Answering the question No. 3 reproduced below, the accused appellant stated that he had nothing to say regarding the injuries reportedly noticed by PW-2 on the body of the deceased :- “3. In his testimony, PW-2 Sri Mridul Deb has deposed that prior to about ¾ years of the alleged incident you used to live as domestic help in the house of his mother Dipa Rani Das. According to him, on the night of occurrence, while he was sleeping with his brother in their bed room, he suddenly heard some noise from his mother’s room and asked his mother to open the door. Thereafter, he broke open the room door and inside the room, he found his mother lying with bleeding injuries with a dagger on her belly. According to him, he mother was assaulted before he could break open the room door and till then, you were present inside his mother’s room. What you have to say in this respect ? Ans : I have nothing to say regarding the injury reportedly noticed by PW-2, on the body of deceased Dipa Rani. I am totally innocent.” He also stated that he did not know anything about the alleged recovery and seizure of one dao from his residence by the Investigating Officer. Answering the question No. 6 reproduced below, the accused appellant stated that he did not have any knowledge as to how his wife i.e. the deceased met with her death. “6. In his evidence, this witness further stated that during the course of investigation he seized one dao on being produced by you in presence of witnesses vide Ext.-2 (Seizure List) wherein, Ext.- 2(3) is his signature. Do you have anything to say in this connection ? “6. In his evidence, this witness further stated that during the course of investigation he seized one dao on being produced by you in presence of witnesses vide Ext.-2 (Seizure List) wherein, Ext.- 2(3) is his signature. Do you have anything to say in this connection ? Ans :- I do not know anything about recovery and seizure of one dao from my residence by the Investigating Officer. I was arrested by police purely on suspicion. I am totally innocent. I do not know who killed Dipa Rani. I also do not have any knowledge as to how Dipa Rani met with her death.” 14. Answering the additional question put to him on a subsequent date, the accused appellant stated that the antemortem injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by Mridul Dev i.e. PW-2 and not by him. This was a development from his earlier own stand, both as DW-1 and also while deposing under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At the same time, he made the following answers in respect of question Nos. 5, 7 and 8 :- “5. PW-4 Sri Loke Nath Sarma has deposed in his testimony that on 14-08-1998 while he was posted as the In-Charge of Jalukbari Police Out Post, on the basis of the F.I.R. Received from Mridul Chandra Deb, Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 304 of 1998 was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of Jalukbari P.S. and the investigation of the case was handed over to him. According to him, during the course of investigation, he visited the crime scene, examined the witnesses and prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence (Ext-4) wherein, Ext.- 4(1) is his signature. He also reportedly conducted inquest on the dead body of Dipa Rani Das and prepared Ext.- 3 (Inquest Report) wherein, Ext.- 3(4) is his signature. Do you like to say anything about this portion of evidence of the Investigating Officer ? Ans :- Regarding the steps taken by the Investigating Officer I have nothing to comment. 7. In his evidence, Dr. P.C. Sarma (PW-6) stated that on 14-08-1998, under his supervision, Dr. K.C. Das conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dipa Rani in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 304 of 2009 and submitted (Ext.-9) Post Mortem Report wherein, Ext.- 9(2) is his signature. 7. In his evidence, Dr. P.C. Sarma (PW-6) stated that on 14-08-1998, under his supervision, Dr. K.C. Das conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dipa Rani in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 304 of 2009 and submitted (Ext.-9) Post Mortem Report wherein, Ext.- 9(2) is his signature. According to the opinion of PW-6 the death of Dipa Rani Das was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple homicidal ante mortem cut and stab injuries caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon which were sufficient to cause death of the victim in ordinary course of nature. What you have to say in this connection ? Ans :- I have nothing to say anything about the finding of the doctor. 8. Apart from what you have deposed in the above paragraphs, in reply to the questions put to you, do you have anything more to say ? Ans :- I have nothing to add.” 15. Above are the evidence on the basis of which the learned trial Court convicted the accused appellant with the sentence as aforesaid. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel strenuously argued that there being no evidence as to the cause of death of the deceased and also as to who had killed her, the learned Trial Court could not have arrived any definite opinion while recording the impugned finding towards convicting the accused appellant purportedly on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189 (Babu Vs. State of Kerala). On the other hand, Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned APP, Assam referring to the evidence on record and also the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court submits that evidences being overwhelming, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 16. As discussed in the impugned judgement, there are circumstantial evidence appearing against the accused appellant. As noted above, the deceased used to stay with the accused as wife and husband inside the particular room where the crime was committed. When the deceased was found in injured condition inside the room, her husband i.e. the accused appellant was also found there. As discussed in the impugned judgement, there are circumstantial evidence appearing against the accused appellant. As noted above, the deceased used to stay with the accused as wife and husband inside the particular room where the crime was committed. When the deceased was found in injured condition inside the room, her husband i.e. the accused appellant was also found there. As stated by PW-2, noticing the commission of the offence by the accused appellant, he had closed the door from outside and rushed to his maternal uncle to report the incident. The evidence of PW-2 is duly supported by the evidence of PW-1 who had come to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. It is in the evidence of PW-1 that reaching the place of occurrence, he found the deceased lying with injuries on her head and belly and the accused was also found inside the room. 17. As discussed above, the weapon of assault was also recovered from the place of occurrence on being produced by the accused appellant. It is in the evidence of I.O. (PW-4) that the bhojali dao was seized on being produced by the accused appellant. Although, the accused appellant in his defence took the plea that he became unconscious and was undergoing treatment at Ayurvedic College, Jalukbari, but there is no evidence to support the said plea rather, he was arrested by the Police from inside the room of his own house. As noted above, it was never the case of the accused appellant that his wife was inflicted with the injuries by some others, rather it was the categorical stand that he was not aware as to who had inflicted the injuries on the deceased. It was only when he was further examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he took the plea that the two sons of the deceased had inflicted the injuries on the deceased. However, when his version is tested in reference to his earlier stand including his stand as DW-1, is found to be of no help to the defence case. The accused appellant also did not lodge any complaint. 18. According to the own testimony of the accused appellant, the PW-2 wanted to inflict injury on his person and the spear blow fell on the neck of the deceased. The accused appellant also did not lodge any complaint. 18. According to the own testimony of the accused appellant, the PW-2 wanted to inflict injury on his person and the spear blow fell on the neck of the deceased. If the story is to be believed, there would have been only one injury in the neck of the deceased, but instead as the injury report would indicate, the deceased received 12 injuries on her body including the injuries on her belly. 19. In Babu (Supra), the Apex Court was concerned with conviction of the accused appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, discussing which the learned Trial Court had acquitted the accused appellant. However, the High Court had reversed the finding on the basis of the purported circumstantial evidence. Discussing the principles relating to circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court while restoring the acquittal judgment of the learned Trial Court, set aside the judgment of conviction of the High Court. We have gone through the entire judgment and are of the considered opinion that none of the principles relating to circumstantial evidence discussed in the said judgment renders any help to the case of the accused appellant. 20. Above being the position, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 21. Registry shall transmit the case diary to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment and order.