Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 891 (GAU)

Bagadhar Gogoi v. State of Assam

2015-07-22

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30.08.2012, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 106(DH) 2008 convicting the appellant, namely, Sri Bagadhar Gogoi of offence U/s. 302/201 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default R.I. for another 1 (one) year for offence U/s. 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default, R.I. for another 6 (Six) months for offence U/s. 201 IPC while acquitting the other accused persons, namely, Sara Suntu Gogoi and Smti. Malati Gogoi of offences aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant, namely, Sri Bagadhar Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as the accused person) has preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Bharali, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused person. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 3. The facts, projected by the prosecution in the F.I.R. dated 19.01.2006 and in subsequent trial, in brief, are that on the basis of G.D. Entry dated 18.01.2006, Silapathar Police disinterred the body of one Dipali Gogoi from a place, close to the house of the accused person. In due course, an inquest on the dead body of such person was done by Learned Executive Magistrate and thereafter, the body of such a woman was sent to Dhemaji Civil Hospital for performing post mortem examination thereon. 4. In the meantime, on 19.01.2006, O/C, Silapathar Police Station received a formal F.I.R. from one Tikiri Chutia, mother of the deceased, wherein it was alleged that on 10.01.2006, the accused person killed Dipali Gogoi and buried her body in a pit in the field nearby his house. 5. On receipt of the said F.I.R., O/c. Silapathar Police Station registered a case vide Silapathar P.S. Case No. 15/2006 U/s. 302/201 IPC and ordered one Sri Prasenjit Das, S.I. of police (P.W. 9) to investigate the case. Being so entrusted with the investigation of the case, the IO Sri Das visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses, and arrested the accused person. 6. Being so entrusted with the investigation of the case, the IO Sri Das visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses, and arrested the accused person. 6. As the investigation progressed from stage to stage, the IO collected the post mortem examination report, did other needful and on conclusion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet U/s. 302/201/34 IPC against Bagadhar Gogoi, Saru Suntu Gogoi and Smti. Malati Gogoi and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial for offences aforesaid. 7. Learned Magistrate, before whom 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. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji on receipt of the case on commitment and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, was pleased to frame charges U/s. 302/201/34 IPC against accused persons and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to them, accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses including the informant and Investigating Officer (IO). Statements of accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. Accused persons pleaded that they were innocent. However, on being required, accused Sri Bagadhar Gogoi examined one witness in support of his claim that he is innocent and no way involved in the crime in question. 9. On conclusion of the trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court while acquitting Saru Suntu Gogoi and Smti. Malati Gogoi of offences, they were charged with, was pleased to convict the appellant Sri Bagadhar Gogoi of offence U/s. 302/201 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 10. Mr. R.K. Bharali, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for accused, Sri Bagadhar Gogoi, submits that the judgment, under challenge, cannot be sustained since it was not rendered on the basis of the evidence on record, nor, was it rendered in accordance with the prescription of law. In support of such contention, it has been alleged that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. Law regarding cases, based on circumstantial evidence, is well settled. 11. In support of such contention, it has been alleged that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. Law regarding cases, based on circumstantial evidence, is well settled. 11. In that context, it has been stated that circumstances, proved by prosecution, in a case based on such circumstantial evidence must form a chain of events without any break anywhere which must lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused person, and none else, is the author of the crime under consideration. In other words, any other hypostasis must be wholly incompatible with the innocence of the accused person. 12. However, in the present case, prosecution has not proved any circumstance incriminating enough to suggest that the accused person had committed the crime in question, much less, such circumstances forming a chain of events unbreakable anywhere requiring the court to conclude that the accused person, and, none else, was the author of the crime, he was charged with. 13. In support of such contention, our attention has been drawn to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Vs. Bala Prasanna, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 645 . The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- "16. A reference may be made to a later decision in Shared Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so compete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 17. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram ( 2003 (8) SCC 180 ), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh & Anr." 14. He, therefore, urges this Court to acquit the accused person of offence U/s. 302/201 IPC on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 15. However, refuting such a contention, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, submits that there is very convincing evidence on record to show that the deceased abandoned her previous husband sometime before her death and eloped with the accused person and started living with him as husband and wife till her death. There is also evidence on record to show that the accused person did not treat the deceased well once she abandoned her husband and once she started to live with the accused person in his house. 16. According to Ms. S. Jahan, there is also evidence on record to show that the accused surreptitiously buried the body of the deceased in the field nearby in order to wash away evidence relating to his killing the deceased. Such evidence, along with other incriminating circumstances, which were brought to our attention, firmly demonstrates that the deceased was killed by the accused person and having killed her, he buried her in a nearby field in order to escape from punishment. 17. Such evidence, along with other incriminating circumstances, which were brought to our attention, firmly demonstrates that the deceased was killed by the accused person and having killed her, he buried her in a nearby field in order to escape from punishment. 17. It is worth noting that the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, had opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the opinion of Doctor to the effect that the victim died a homicidal death, gives more and more support to the prosecution case that the accused was the person who killed the victim on and around 10.01.2006. 18. It has been further stated by the learned Addl. P.P. Assam that the accused person set up the plea that the victim died of consuming poison. However, medical report totally ruled out such an eventuality. Such revelation is yet another testimony to the fact that the accused person set up such a false plea in order to shield him from punishment. On all those counts, Ms. Jahan, urges this Court to dismiss the appeal on confirming the judgment under challenge. 19. We have considered the rival submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties having regard to the evidence on record as well as the judgment under challenge. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. But before considering the evidence of the Doctor, we find it necessary to judge the evidence of non-official witnesses as well as the evidence of the IO. 20. We have found that one Tikiri Chutia, who was examined as P.W. 1, is mother of the deceased. She is also the informant of the case in hand. According to her, one day, accused Bagadhar Gogoi informed her that Dipali was no more. On being so informed, she immediately rushed to the house of Bogadhar Gogoi and found her daughter hanging from a tree in the compound of the accused person. 21. She immediately informed such incident to the people of the locality and on being suggested by them, the body of her daughter was buried in the field nearby. On being so informed, she immediately rushed to the house of Bogadhar Gogoi and found her daughter hanging from a tree in the compound of the accused person. 21. She immediately informed such incident to the people of the locality and on being suggested by them, the body of her daughter was buried in the field nearby. She was, however, declared hostile since she resiled from her previous statement which she rendered before the police during the course of investigation wherein she alleged that the accused person had killed his wife and thereafter surreptitiously buried her body in a nearby field without giving any information to anyone including her. 22. P.W. 2 is the President of the Village Defence Party (in short, VDP). He is heard saying that before her death, the deceased used to live in the house of the accused person. On coming to know from the village people that the accused had killed the deceased, he, as being the VDP President, verbally requested the police to ascertain such allegation. Thereafter, police took the accused into their custody and on his confession, police disinterred the dead body of Dipali Gogoi from a place on the bank of a channel, nearby. 23. Thereafter police arrested the accused person and his other family members. In due course, an inquest was done on the body of the deceased and in that connection, a report was prepared which he proved as Ext. 1. In his cross examination, he deposes that he went to the place where the dead body was found buried and where from such body was disinterred by police in presence of several persons. 24. P.W. 3, Sri Manik Hazarika, is Asstt. Secy. of the V.D.P. According to him, having come to know that Dipali had gone missing, they suspected that the accused person might have killed her and buried her thereafter in some unknown place. Accordingly, they reported the matter to the police. Being so informed, police took the accused into its custody and thereafter, he led the police party to the place where the dead body was found buried. The dead body was disinterred and thereafter an inquest was done on the dead body which he proved as Ext. 1. 25. P.W. 4, Sri Loknath Gogoi, is the brother of the accused person. The dead body was disinterred and thereafter an inquest was done on the dead body which he proved as Ext. 1. 25. P.W. 4, Sri Loknath Gogoi, is the brother of the accused person. He deposes that he saw the deceased in the house of the accused person quite often. Sometime later, he came to know from his brother that Dipali Gogoi was no more. He also came to know that her dead body was exhumed from a place situated on the bank of a nearby brook. 26. P.W. 5, Sri Sushil Baruah, deposes that a female dead body was disinterred in his presence from a place on the bank of a nearby brook and in that connection, an inquest was done on the body of the deceased and thereafter a report was prepared which he proved as Ext. 1. P.W. 6, Sri Dilip Gogoi too deposes that police disinterred the dead body of a female from a place on being shown by accused Bogadhar Gogoi. 27. P.W. 8, Dipak Borah, deposes that the body of the deceased was disinterred from a place on the bank of a nearby brook and thereafter an inquest was done on the dead body and in that connection a report was prepared which he proved as Ext. 1. 28. P.W. 9, Sri Prosenjit Das is the S.I. of Police and IO of the case. According to him on 18.01.2006 at about 9.35 PM, one Sri Dilip Gogoi (P.W. 6) informed him that the accused person killed his wife and thereafter her body was buried on the bank of a nearby brook. On getting such information, he made a G.D. Entry vide G.D. Entry No. 442 dated 18.01.2006 and then proceeded to the place of occurrence and also arrested the accused person. It is also in his evidence that during the course of investigation, the accused person led him to a place where the dead body was said to have been buried. 29. After recovery of the dead body from the place aforesaid, he also recorded the statements of the accused person which he proved as Ext. 4. According to him, the aforesaid place was dug on being shown by accused Bogadhar and exhumed the body of the deceased. 29. After recovery of the dead body from the place aforesaid, he also recorded the statements of the accused person which he proved as Ext. 4. According to him, the aforesaid place was dug on being shown by accused Bogadhar and exhumed the body of the deceased. Thereafter he caused an inquest to be done on the dead body by an Executive Magistrate who prepared a report in that connection, which he proved it as Ext. 1. 30. As the investigation progressed from stage to stage, he also seized a spade on the strength of a seizure list Ext. 2, drew up sketch map of the PO, vide Ext. 6, sent the dead body to hospital for post mortem examination. He also recorded the statement of the first wife of the accused, namely, Malati Gogoi which he proved as Ext. 5, did other needful and on conclusion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet U/s. 302/201/34 IPC against the 3 (three) persons including the present appellant. 31. We have found that the accused person adduced evidence of one Smti. Faguni Baruati who was examined as D.W. 1. In her evidence, D.W. 1 deposes that the deceased committed suicide and she came to know about such incident from her co-villagers. On getting the information that the deceased committed suicide, some people of the village gathered there and advised the accused person to bury the body of the deceased. 32. Being so advised by villagers, the accused had buried the body of the deceased in a nearby field. In her cross examination, she admitted that she did not know when the deceased came to the house of the accused person. In her cross examination, she further admitted that the accused person is her own nephew. 33. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to consider the evidence of Dr. Amrit Kr. Pegu, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body. He was examined as P.W. 7. According to him, on 20.01.06, he was posted as Medical & Health Officer-1 at Dhemaji Civil Hospital. 33. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to consider the evidence of Dr. Amrit Kr. Pegu, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body. He was examined as P.W. 7. According to him, on 20.01.06, he was posted as Medical & Health Officer-1 at Dhemaji Civil Hospital. On that day, he performed post mortem examination on the dead body of one Dipali Gogoi, C/o. Bagadhar Gogoi, Vill Majgaon, Silapathare on police requisition on being identified by UBC-Dipak Bora, Bhupen Buragohain, Dilip Gogoi and Manik Hazarika and found as follows:- "On External Examination This is a dead body of a middle aged woman upon which Post Mortem Examination is done. The dead body is totally decomposed with maggots on the neck and abdomen. A rape like cloth found lying on the neck. No ligature mark or any abrasion mark seen on the neck. No any injury mark detected on the body except faint abrasion like mark on the back. On dissection of the neck, the ribbon muscle and blood vessel are found torn. Communicated fracture of the hyoid bone is seen. On dissection of inside neck, pharynx, larynx, trachea and root of tongue are also found swallow and congested. On dissection of the scalp and skull and brain and its membranes are found normal and healthy. The spinal cord and vertebrae are found healthy. The abdominal cavity and its viscera are found healthy. The users is normal in size and shape. Urinary bladder is empty. External genetelias are normal and healthy. The stomach is empty. Small intestine is having semi digested foods and the large intestine is loaded with faecal matters. In my opinion, the cause of death is asphyxia following airway obstruction of the levels of the pharynx. The injury in the throat is sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. Ext. 3 is the post mortem report and Ext. 3(1) is my signature". 34. Let us consider the above evidence of doctor in the light of observations made by Modi in respect of death caused by strangulation and death caused by hang (suicidal) in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence. For ready reference, the chart made on death caused by strangulation and death caused by hang (suicidal) is reproduced below:- "Differences between Hanging and Strangulation-The differences between hanging and strangulation are given below in tabulated form: 35. For ready reference, the chart made on death caused by strangulation and death caused by hang (suicidal) is reproduced below:- "Differences between Hanging and Strangulation-The differences between hanging and strangulation are given below in tabulated form: 35. A perusal of above chart in the light of evidence of doctor as well Ext. 3 reveals that the body of the person aforesaid bears most of the signs which were found in case of death caused by strangulation. Very significantly, signs which were found on the dead body in case of suicidal hanging are also found conspicuously absent in case of death of person aforesaid. A careful perusal of evidence of doctor alongside the chart aforesaid makes such a conclusion inevitable. Being so, we have no difficulty in concluding that the death of the person aforesaid was homicidal in nature. 36. So situated, let us see how the deceased met her death. The evidence on record reveals that the deceased was the wife of one Chandra Phukan. It is also in evidence that she gave birth to 4 (four) children from the side of said Chandra Phukan. However, thereafter, she withdrew from the company of her first husband and started to live in the house of the accused person. 37. It is also in evidence that the people who are living in the village of the accused person did not know when the deceased met her death but they suspected that the deceased might have been killed by the accused person and her body might have been concealed somewhere. Therefore, having come to know about the missing of the victim, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 reported the matter to the police over phone for necessary action. 38. On receiving such information, police made necessary G.D. Entry vide G.D. Entry No. 442 dated 18.01.2006 and took the accused person and his other family members into custody. In the meantime, on 19.01.2006 the mother of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. alleging that her daughter was killed by the accused person and her body was concealed somewhere. On the basis of such an F.I.R., a case was registered and P.W. 9, Sri Prosenjit Das, SI of police was entrusted to investigate the case. 39. In the meantime, on 19.01.2006 the mother of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. alleging that her daughter was killed by the accused person and her body was concealed somewhere. On the basis of such an F.I.R., a case was registered and P.W. 9, Sri Prosenjit Das, SI of police was entrusted to investigate the case. 39. It is found evident from the testimony of P.W. 9 that during the course of investigation, the accused took the police to the place where body of the victim was buried and on being shown by him, a place was dug up wherefrom the body of the victim was retrieved. Thereafter, statements of the accused person was recorded which was proved as Ext. 4 where he admitted that one night, having found his wife to have committed suicide, he got perplexed and with the help of his younger brother took the body of the deceased to the field nearby, dug a pit and buried her body in such a pit. The recovery of the dead body from the place aforesaid was also supported by other witnesses, namely, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 7. 40. A careful perusal of evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 further reveals that the deceased lived with the accused for some time before she went missing sometime in the early part of 2006. The evidence of those 2 (two) witnesses also reveals that they suspected that the accused might have killed the deceased for which they reported the matter to the police over phone. Evidence of P.W. 9 reveals that on being so informed, police made a GD Entry vide GD Entry No. 442 dated 18.01.2006 and took the accused and his wife Malati Gogoi into its custody. 41. However, on a perusal of evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, it would appear clear that the body of the aforesaid woman was found buried in a place not far from the house of the accused person and same was retrieved in presence of those P.Ws. as well as the accused person. 41. However, on a perusal of evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, it would appear clear that the body of the aforesaid woman was found buried in a place not far from the house of the accused person and same was retrieved in presence of those P.Ws. as well as the accused person. One may note here that there is no dispute over the fact that the deceased had abandoned her previous husband sometime before her death as well as that she started to live with the accused person and continued to do so till she went missing sometime in the middle part of January, 2006. The prosecution story as projected by mother of the deceased in her F.I.R., who was subsequently declared hostile to the prosecution, too supports such claim of the prosecution side. 42. We have found that the IO recorded the discovery statements of the accused person which was proved as Ext. 4. However, such a statement was recorded only after the recovery of the dead body from a place where it was said buried. Therefore, on the face of it, Exbt. 4 does not appear to be a discovery statement so contemplated in Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. But then, a closure perusal of Exbt. 4 further reveals that while in custody, the accused told the IO that he buried the body of the deceased at a place in the field not far away from his house and only on the basis of such information, the police came to place aforesaid and disinterred the body of the deceased there-from. 43. On perusal of the evidence on record more and more, we have also found that there is clear evidence on record to show that till the disinterment of the body of the deceased from the place aforesaid, nobody knew where the victim had gone once she disappeared on or around 10th January, 2006. Situation being such, till the time of disinterment of the dead body from the place aforesaid, only the accused person and none else was aware of dead body being buried in such a place. 44. Equally important, he first furnished such information to the IO while he was in custody and on the basis of such information, the body of the deceased was disinterred from said place subsequently. 44. Equally important, he first furnished such information to the IO while he was in custody and on the basis of such information, the body of the deceased was disinterred from said place subsequently. Such revelations, in our considered opinion, unmistakably demonstrate that the statement in the Exbt. 4 though recorded after the disinterment of the body of the deceased, yet, such statement is, in-fact, a discovery statement as contemplated in Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act and court can very well place reliance on the same in ascertaining the charges leveled against the accused person. 45. One may note here that P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 claim that one night the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree nearby her house and that on the advice of villagers, the accused buried her body in a place wherefrom such body was recovered subsequently. However, such claims of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 are found to be enormously unbelievable for reasons more than one. 46. It is found well evident from the testimonies of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 that the people living in the village of the accused person were not aware of as to what happened to the deceased who went on missing all of a sudden from the middle part of January, 2006 for which they reported such matter to the police over phone suspecting the accused as the person responsible for disappearance of such a person. 47. It is also found apparent that on being so informed, the police took the accused person and his other family members into their custody and only thereafter, on the basis of information, furnished by the accused person while in custody, people came to know that the body of the victim was buried in a place not far away from the residence of the accused person. 48. Such revelations again demonstrate that the claim of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 that the deceased committed suicide one night hanging herself from a tree nearby her house, their claim that the people of their village came to know about such incident and also their claim that on the advice of the villagers, the body of the deceased was buried in the place aforesaid are nothing but a pack of lies only. The fact that the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the deceased died to asphyxia following airway obstruction at the level of pharynx makes such a conclusion inevitable. 49. Such a conclusion from us finds more and more support from the fact that there is evidence on record to show that P.W. 1 lodged an F.I.R. stating that her daughter was killed by the accused person on 10.01.2006 and having killed her, the accused reportedly buried her somewhere. Such revelation has again served to show that the aforesaid claims of P.W. 1 or for that matter, the claims of D.W. 1 are outright falsehood. 50. We have found that there is no material on record to show that any person other than the appellant herein had any opportunity or reason to extinguish the life of the victim. Such facts coupled with the fact that the relationship between the accused and the deceased turned sour after the deceased started to live in the house of the accused person again strongly suggest that the accused was the person who killed the aforesaid woman and then buried her body in a place where from it was exhumed later. 51. Our foregoing discussions, now, reveals that the prosecution has fully established the following circumstances:- (i) The deceased was married to one Chandra Phukan, (ii) She had begotten 4 (four) children from her first marriage, (iii) The deceased abandoned her first husband as well as her children from the first marriage, (iv) The deceased eloped with the accused person (who happens to be a married man and also her brother-in-law) and started to live with him, (v) The deceased went missing on and from 10.01.2006, (vi) Villagers as well as mother of the deceased had no information as to how the victim disappeared and (vii) Villagers suspected that the deceased might have been killed by the accused person and her body might have been concealed by him somewhere. 52. 52. The prosecution has proved some other circumstances as well which are as follows:- (a) Owing to such suspicions, villagers reported the matter to the police over phone and handed over the accused to the police authority, (b) The body of the deceased was disinterred from a place on a bank of the nearby brook, (c) Nobody knew where the victim had gone once she disappeared on or about 10.01.2006 till her body was retrieved from the place aforementioned, (d) Body was so disinterred, while the accused was in police custody, (e) Body was disinterred in presence of villagers and the accused person (f) The body was disinterred from the place aforesaid on the basis of information furnished by the accused person to the police while he was in police custody and (g) The death of the deceased appears to be homicidal in nature. 53. In our opinion, circumstances, detailed above, established a chain of circumstances which clearly show that the accused was the person responsible for killing of the victim on or about 10.01.2006 and thereafter he concealed her dead body on the bank of nearby stream. The fact that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that any person other than the accused had any reason or opportunity to kill the victim makes such a conclusion inevitable. 54. The accused setup the plea that the deceased committed suicide for which he buried the deceased in a place wherefrom it was disinterred on 19.01.2006. However, such a plea is found to be totally false. Our foregoing discussion has made it more than clear. Same needs no further reiteration. Such false plea again demonstrates the involvement of the accused in the crime in question. 55. We have found that all the circumstances which stared direct at the accused person were brought to his notice while being examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused instead of offering explanation to those circumstances doled out the plea that he is innocent. Such plea of innocence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, provides the prosecution with a missing link, if any, in the prosecution case which put the prosecution case on more and more firm footing. 56. We have already found that the accused set up the plea that on the fateful night, the victim committed suicide by hanging himself from a tree in his compound. 56. We have already found that the accused set up the plea that on the fateful night, the victim committed suicide by hanging himself from a tree in his compound. However, on noticing the same, he got perplexed and therefore, he reported the matter to his brother and other family members as well as to his immediate neighbours and on their advice, he buried the body of the victim in the place aforesaid. However, such a plea is found to be a huge pack of lies. Our foregoing discussion has made it clear. 57. Such revelations coupled with the fact that no person from the village of the accused had any inkling as to how the victim disappeared from the middle part of January, 2006 and as well as the fact that the Doctor opined that the victim died a homicidal death have firmly demonstrated that the accused is the person who killed the deceased on the night in question and that too by strangulation. 58. In view of above, we have found no infirmity in the judgment under challenge and as such, same, in our opinion, invites no interference from this court of appeal. 59. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. 60. Return the LCR forthwith. We deeply appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. R.K. Bharali learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the present appeal. State is, therefore, directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) as being his professional fee within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.