Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 45 (GAU)

Prema Baglary v. State of Assam

2020-01-10

MANISH CHOUDHURY, MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. 1. Heard Ms. Purnima Baruah Bordoloi, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 60/2015, whereby, the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 1 (one) month. The accused-appellant has also been convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. and on that count, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 1 (one) month. Both the sentences are directed to be run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the Ejahar lodged on 21.01.2012 before the Officer In Charge, Misamari Police Station by one Md. Jamal Uddin Talukdar (P.W. 2), was to the effect that on 31.12.2011, his elder sister viz. Padma Talukdar (Waheda) had gone to her work at Misamari Military Dairy Farm but she did not return thereafter. Having found her missing, the informant i.e. P.W. 2 on 02.01.2012, had lodged an Ejahar with the Misamari Police Station. While making search for his sister, the informant had found her decomposed dead body and the bicycle at about 9-00 a.m. on 21.01.2012 in a thick jungle near the OMC and Misamari Dairy Farm. The informant suspected that some unknown miscreant after killing his elder sister, had thrown her dead body into the jungle. 4. On receipt of the said Ejahar, the Officer-In-Charge, Misamari Police Station registered a case being Misamari Police Station Case No. 6/2012 (corresponding G.R. Case No. 169/2012) under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. and entrusted the investigation to one Mr. L.R. Nath, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 19). Accordingly, the investigation was initiated by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) (P.W. 19). 5. 4. On receipt of the said Ejahar, the Officer-In-Charge, Misamari Police Station registered a case being Misamari Police Station Case No. 6/2012 (corresponding G.R. Case No. 169/2012) under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. and entrusted the investigation to one Mr. L.R. Nath, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 19). Accordingly, the investigation was initiated by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) (P.W. 19). 5. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recovered the decomposed dead body and a bicycle from inside the jungle near the OMC and Misamari Dairy Farm after holding inquests on 21.01.2012 on the dead body so found, in four parts as the head and the arms were found to be severed from the remaining parts of the body. The I.O. also prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The dead body was sent to the Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur for Post-Mortem Examination. Later on, certain parts of the dead body were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Assam at Guwahati for examination. 6. As it transpires, it was at about 07-30 p.m. on 21.01.2012, the I.O. on the basis of secret information received, searched for the accused-appellant and finding him in his house, brought the accused-appellant to the Police Station for interrogation. When asked, as per the version of the I.O. (P.W. 19), the accused-appellant denied his involvement in the incident. But the accused-appellant was kept in the Police Station for further interrogation for the day and on 22.02.2012, the accused-appellant was given in the custody of his brother. After having collected some information of alleged frequent talks between Padma Talukdar and the accused-appellant over mobile phones, the accused-appellant was arrested on 25.01.2012. Claiming that the accused-appellant had confessed the commission of crime during such custody, the accused-appellant was arrested and forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur for recording of his statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Cr.P.C.", in short) on 27.01.2012. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tezpur (P.W. 9) on 30.01.2012. The I.O. after collecting the Post-Mortem Examination Report (Ext. -1) and the FSL Report (Ext. -12), had submitted the Charge Sheet under Section 173, Cr.P.C. finding a prima-facie case against the accused-appellant under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. 7. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tezpur (P.W. 9) on 30.01.2012. The I.O. after collecting the Post-Mortem Examination Report (Ext. -1) and the FSL Report (Ext. -12), had submitted the Charge Sheet under Section 173, Cr.P.C. finding a prima-facie case against the accused-appellant under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. 7. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur after securing the appearance of the accused-appellant in G.R. Case No. 169/2012, complied with the procedure by serving the copies to the accused-appellant as required under Section 207, Cr.P.C. Having found the case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur by order dated 26.02.2015, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur by sending the case records of G.R. Case No. 169/2012 and by informing the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. On receipt of the case records of G.R. Case No. 169/2012, the Court of Sessions, Sonitpur registered the same as Sessions Case No. 60/2015. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302, I.P.C. and under Section 201, I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. When the above charges were read over, interpreted and explained to the accused-appellant, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the above charges against the accused-appellant examined as many as 19 nos. of witnesses viz. (1) P.W. 1 - Dr. R.M. Keot, Medical & Health Officer-I, Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur; (2) P.W. 2 - Sri Jamaluddin Talukdar, the informant; (3) P.W. 3 - Md. Ussuf Ali, VDP Secretary; (4) P.W. 4 - Sri Kartik Mushahari, VDO Secretary; (5) P.W. 5 - Sri Karunasagar Borah, Circle Organiser, VDP; (6) P.W. 6 - Sri Bibit Chandra Nath; (7) P.W. 7 - Sri Bulbul Boro; (8) P.W. 8 - Jainaluddin, VDP Secretary; (9) P.W. 9 - Sri Kiran Lal Baishnab, the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonitpur, Tezpur; (10) P.W. 10 - Md. Abdul Kasem; (11) P.W. 11 - Sri Ruben Lima; (12) P.W. 12 - Dr. Manash Das, Scientific Officer, FSL, Assam; (13) P.W. 13 - Sri Monoj Kr. Sikaria, Executive Magistrate; (14) P.W. 14 - Smti. Abdul Kasem; (11) P.W. 11 - Sri Ruben Lima; (12) P.W. 12 - Dr. Manash Das, Scientific Officer, FSL, Assam; (13) P.W. 13 - Sri Monoj Kr. Sikaria, Executive Magistrate; (14) P.W. 14 - Smti. Rekha Boro, Sister of the accused-appellant; (15) P.W. 15 - Sri Bihuram Boro, Village Headman; (16) P.W. 16 - Sri Ashok Kurmi; (17) P.W. 17 - Sri Priyatam Chakraborty; (18) P.W. 18 - Md. Amin Ansary; and (19) P.W. 19 - Sri Lekharuram Nath, Sub-Inspector of Police (I.O.). The prosecution also exhibited 19 nos. of exhibits and 6 nos. of material exhibits. Amongst the exhibits are the Post-Mortem Examination Report (Ext. -1), the Ejahar (Ext. -2), 4 (four) Inquest Reports (Ext. -3 to Ext. -6), the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. (Ext. -11), the FSL Report (Ext. -12) and General Diary Entries (Ext. -14, Ext. -15 and Ext. 18). 10. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, had found the accused-appellant guilty of both the charges framed against him and accordingly, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as has been mentioned above. The learned trial Court is of the opinion that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one and the confessional statement of the accused-appellant and the extra-judicial confession made by him before a number of witnesses with a conjoint reading of the other evidence on record, has conclusively established the guilt of the accused. The learned trial Court is also of the opinion that though there is no direct evidence, the chain of circumstances established have been found to be complete. 11. Assailing such findings of the learned trial Court, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the learned trial Court had erred in convicting the accused-appellant by basing its findings on extra-judicial confessions and the confessional statement of the accused-appellant. According to her, the so called extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the accused-appellant cannot be accepted in evidence in view of the bar under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. She further submits that the conviction cannot be based solely on the confessional statement of the accused-appellant. Such submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae have been controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor. She further submits that the conviction cannot be based solely on the confessional statement of the accused-appellant. Such submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae have been controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that even if the so called extra-judicial confessions are taken out of the purview, the conviction can be based on the confessional statement solely when the same is found to be recorded with due compliance of the procedure prescribed by law. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of Sessions Case No. 60/2015, in original. 13. Before embarking on the exercise to analyse and examine the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, it is found apt to consider the evidence of the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body so found as well as the evidence of the Scientific Officer, FSL who examined the materials sent to the FSL for examination. P.W. 1 was the Medical & Health Officer - I, Kanaklata civil Hospital, Tezpur who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination on the parts of the human body, identified to be of the deceased Padma Talukdar on 22.01.2002. He found the body highly decomposed. In his evidence, he stated that only the following parts of the human body without muscles and soft tissues were found (1) One skull without mandible, (2) two upper limbs, (3) part of scalp hair and (4) skeleton from neck to both lower limbs. He deposed that no opinion can be given from the body parts so available and therefore, he referred the skeleton and other human body parts to the FSL, Guwahati. He further stated that the dead body was not recognizable from facial and other parts. In the absence of mandible, facial recognition became almost impossible. Exhibiting the Post-Mortem Examination Report as Ext. -1, he also stated that it was not clear as to whether the body parts were that of a male or a female. It was not possible, according to P.W. 1, from an examination of those body parts, to give an opinion as regards the cause of death. He also stated that he could not say whether the body parts he examined, were the body parts of Padma Talukdar or not. It was not possible, according to P.W. 1, from an examination of those body parts, to give an opinion as regards the cause of death. He also stated that he could not say whether the body parts he examined, were the body parts of Padma Talukdar or not. The Scientific Officer, FSL i.e. P.W. 12 had, in his evidence, disclosed the results of his examination as under: "Results of Examination:- 1. Morphological and osteological examination of the Exhibit No. bio 2044 to bio 2063 marked by me reveals that these are skeletal bones of human in origin and derived from one adult female individual. 2. The age of the deceased at the time of death is found to be more than 25 years of age. Moreover the height of the deceased is found approximately 4'8". 3. Chemical analysis gave negative result for the presence of common poison. As such cause of death could not be ascertained." He further stated that from a scientific examination of the bones the time of death could not be ascertained. 14. From the above, it has only emerged that on examination of the parts of the dead body so found it could only be determined that the same are parts of one adult female individual, aged more than 25 years of age and of height approximately 4'8'' but the cause of death could not be ascertained. 15. P.W. 3, VDP Secretary of Lakhupara Village, deposed to the effect that on the day of the incident, he went to Misamari Police Station. He found that some other people were also present in the Police Station. At that time, the Officer-In-Charge and VDP people interrogated the accused-appellant and the accused-appellant confessed to have killed Padma Talukdar. Thereafter, the accused-appellant stated to have taken the people to the place near Army Dairy Farm in the jungle where he stated to have killed Padma Talukdar. In cross-examination, P.W. 3 stated that when they met the accused-appellant, he was in police custody as he was kept in the lockup. The Circle Inspector was also present. The accused-appellant was taken to the alleged place of occurrence in a police vehicle by the police. 16. P.W. 4, also a VDP Secretary of Bandarhagi Pathar, deposed in the similar line like P.W. 3. The Circle Inspector was also present. The accused-appellant was taken to the alleged place of occurrence in a police vehicle by the police. 16. P.W. 4, also a VDP Secretary of Bandarhagi Pathar, deposed in the similar line like P.W. 3. The evidence of P.W. 5, a Circle Organiser of Village Defence Organisation (VDO) and P.W. 8, another VDP Secretary, are also in similar lines with P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. 17. From the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8, it is seen that all of them had found the accused-appellant in police custody in the Misamari Police Station. It was in such police custody, they had found the accused-appellant confessing about killing the alleged victim. It was after such confession in police custody, the accused-appellant was taken to the alleged place of occurrence by him where the parts of the dead body were found on 21.01.2012. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in no uncertain terms has prescribed that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act has further mentioned that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, confessions made before police officers and in police custody are inadmissible in evidence and the same cannot be brought on record by the prosecution to secure confession. Thus, the above evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 as regards confession made by the accused-appellant before them while the accused-appellant was in police custody, cannot be considered against the accused-appellant. 18. P.W. 6 had deposed that when the accused-appellant was taken to the place of occurrence by police, he also went along with them. Going there, he saw human skeleton in three parts. At the said spot, the police prepared 4 (four) Inquest Reports - Ext. 3, Ext. 4, Ext. 5 & Ext. 6 - of the skeletons in presence of the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Circle and P.W. 6 signed as a witness on those Inquest Reports. Going there, he saw human skeleton in three parts. At the said spot, the police prepared 4 (four) Inquest Reports - Ext. 3, Ext. 4, Ext. 5 & Ext. 6 - of the skeletons in presence of the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Circle and P.W. 6 signed as a witness on those Inquest Reports. In his cross-examination, P.W. 6 stated that he neither had any personal knowledge about the death of Padma Talukdar nor about the circumstances under which she died. He further admitted that what was recovered was a skeleton and the same was not recognizable. He also stated that he saw the accused-appellant in the police station on the day he signed the Inquest Reports. 19. P.W. 7 apart from reiterating what the other witnesses, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 & P.W. 8 had stated, deposed that when the accused-appellant was asked in the Police Station after confession he volunteered to show the place and thereafter, he took the police and other persons to the forest near OMC. He is also a seizure witness to the seizure list, Ext. -9 whereby a SIM card, Material Ext. -5, was seized. He, in his cross-examination, admitted that he saw the accused-appellant for the first time in the Police Station and he did not accompany the police and the accused-appellant to the place of occurrence. Thus, the evidence of this witness save and except the part relating to seizure of the SIM card, cannot be considered in view of its inadmissibility for the bar under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act. 20. P.W. 10, the Gaon Bura stated that he was informed by P.W. 2 that Padma Talukdar went missing on 31.12.2011. About 20-22 days thereafter, P.W. 2 informed him that a dead body was recovered in the jungle near the OMC. He went there and found a bicycle, a severed head and headless dead body separately lying at different places. It was on the basis of bangles and earrings in the parts of the dead body, P.W. 2 identified it to be of his sister. He was also a witness to the Inquest Reports- Ext. 3, Ext. 4, Ext. 5 & Ext. 6. 21. P.W. 11 like P.W. 10, stated to have gone along with others to the forest near Misamari Army Campus and saw the dead body in pieces and a bicycle near it. He was also a witness to the Inquest Reports- Ext. 3, Ext. 4, Ext. 5 & Ext. 6. 21. P.W. 11 like P.W. 10, stated to have gone along with others to the forest near Misamari Army Campus and saw the dead body in pieces and a bicycle near it. He is a seizure witness in Ext. 7 seizure list whereby police seized Material Ext. -1 & Material Ext. -2 churidars and Material Ext. 3 Urni. He is also a witness to the seizure list Ext. 8 whereby Material Ext. 4 bicycle was seized. 22. P.W. 14 is the elder sister of the accused appellant. P.W. 15, is a co-villager of the accused appellant. They are witnesses in the Ext. -12 seizure list whereby one mobile phone from the house of P.W. 14 was seized. P.W. 16 and P.W. 18 are witnesses in Ext. -13 seizure list whereby one CD (Material Ext. -6) was seized from P.W. 17. P.W. 17 stated that he accompanied the Officer-In-charge, Misamari Police Station to the jungle where he recorded the statement made by one person who showed some things. But he did not name the person who statement was recorded by him. Though the Material Ext. -6 CD was exhibited but there is no whisper about the contents of the said CD as the same was not played. Neither P.W. 16 nor P.W. 18 was aware of the contents of the CD. The I/O (P.W. 19), in his testimony, had spoken about the preparation of the CD and each seizure thereof and also about the seizure of the mobile hand set vide Material Ext. -5 along with Aircel SIM Card No. 7399127859. But he did not say the relevance of the scene in respect of the investigation. Though P.W. 19 stated about the frequent talk between Aircel SIM No. 7399127859 and mobile no. 9957569253, allegedly belonging to the deceased, on the basis of the Call Details Report (CDR), he did not exhibit the CDR on the basis of which he sought to bring in the involvement and complicity of the accused-appellant in the murder of Padma Talukdar. It is neither brought on record that the Aricel SIM No. 7399127859 belongs to the accused-appellant nor he had established that the same was used by the accused-appellant. It is neither brought on record that the Aricel SIM No. 7399127859 belongs to the accused-appellant nor he had established that the same was used by the accused-appellant. As the prosecution has not established and proved the relevance of the mobile phone and the CD so seized and the CDR, as indicated above, no further dilation, thus, in this respect is found to be necessary. 23. From the Inquest Reports - Ext. -3, Ext. -4, Ext. -5 & Ext. -6, it is noticed that the dead body was found in 3 (three) parts with the head, the arms and the remaining parts of the body lying scattered at three places. The witnesses to the Inquest Reports also corroborate the said fact. From the discussion of the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 12, it has already emerged that the cause of death of the person whose dead body was found, could not be ascertained. In such view of the matter, we are not persuaded to concur with the findings of the learned trial Court as regards homicidal death of the dead body so found in three parts. 24. Thus, in the aforesaid fact situation, what is left for the prosecution to connect the accused appellant with the alleged murder of Padma Talukdar is the confessional statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by P.W. 9, the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tezpur, on 30.01.2012. From the testimony of P.W. 9, it has emerged that the accused-appellant was produced before him on 27.01.2012 after 72 hours of police custody. When the accused-appellant was so produced before P.W. 9 on 27.01.2012, P.W. 9 sent the accused-appellant to judicial custody till 30.01.2012 after explaining the requisite formalities and consequence of a confessional statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. We have perused the procedure followed by P.W. 9 recording the confessional statement of the accused-appellant on 30.01.2012, which is available as Ext. 11. Having gone through the same, including the questions put to the accused-appellant before P.W. 9 had gone to record the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 164, Cr.P.C., we for the moment accept that the requisite precautions were taken before recording the statement to ensure voluntariness of the confession to remove any cloud of undue influence, coercion and/or threat. 25. Having gone through the same, including the questions put to the accused-appellant before P.W. 9 had gone to record the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 164, Cr.P.C., we for the moment accept that the requisite precautions were taken before recording the statement to ensure voluntariness of the confession to remove any cloud of undue influence, coercion and/or threat. 25. It is settled proposition of law that a conviction can be based on the basis of a confessional statement of an accused but before basing any conviction, the Court has to satisfy itself in regard to (a) voluntariness of the confession; (b) truthfulness of the confession; and (c) corroboration in material particulars. In essence, the Court has to get to the assurance without any iota of doubt that there is a ring of truth in the confession of the accused. 26. In his statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant had stated that about 7 (seven) years back he and Padma Talukdar were serving in the dairy firm and at the time, she got pregnant and put the blame of pregnancy on him. Blaming so, she demanded money from him and he gave her an amount of Rs. 5,000/- fearing that the same might bring disrepute to him. Thereafter, he forbade her to talk to him. But since 1/1½ years back, she again started talking to him and started spreading that he loved her and would marry her. Over the said issue, quarrel use to took place in his family every day. On 25.12.2011, he saw her doing physical relationship with an Army Jawan in the Jungle. Subsequently on 28.12.2011, she made a phone call to him but when his wife attended the phone his wife was informed by her that he would marry her. Then, his parents and his wife scolded him. It was on 31.12.2011, she asks for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from him over phone and quarrels had taken place in his family for her. Due to such acts of her, he got enrolled and he called her near the dairy firm at about 4-30 p.m. He went there at about 4-30 p.m. and when she arrived, he dragged her from the bicycle and then killed her by squeezing her neck with her dupatta. After so killing her, he threw her body and the bicycle into the jungle and came back to his house. 27. After so killing her, he threw her body and the bicycle into the jungle and came back to his house. 27. When we read the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we do not find anything which goes to corroborate the events pertaining to the relationship between the accused-appellant and Padma Talukdar prior to 31.12.2011. In so far as that part in the confessional statement of the accused-appellant as regards the event stated to have occurred on 31.12.2011 is concerned we find that the accused-appellant stated to have killed Padma Talukdar by squeezing her neck with her dupatta. But the evidence led by the prosecution do not go to show that the death of the dead body found inside the jungle had been caused due to strangulation. As has been mentioned above, the head and the arms were found to have been severed from the remaining part of the body. The medical evidence do not go to indicate that the death was caused due to strangulation. Apart from indicating that the parts of the dead body were that of a female aged above 25 years and having height of 4'8'' nothing more was ascertained on scientific examination. Padma Talukdar was found missing since 31.12.2011 and the parts of the dead body was found in the jungle on 21.01.2012. The prosecution has not brought any kind of evidence to show that there was any relationship between the accused-appellant and Padma Talukdar at any earlier point of time. Evidently, there is no corroboration to the major parts of the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. As a result, there arises a doubt as regards the truthfulness of the confession made by the accused-appellant for the lack of corroboration through any other prosecution evidence. In such view of the matter, it becomes difficult to rely wholly on the veracity of the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. 28. The informant (P.W. 2), in his testimony, had stated that when on receipt of information on 21.01.2012 that a cycle was seen by one lady inside the forest near OMC Camp he went there, he found the ladies bicycle belonging to his sister. Thereafter, he informed Misamari Police Station about the recovery of the bicycle over telephone. The informant (P.W. 2), in his testimony, had stated that when on receipt of information on 21.01.2012 that a cycle was seen by one lady inside the forest near OMC Camp he went there, he found the ladies bicycle belonging to his sister. Thereafter, he informed Misamari Police Station about the recovery of the bicycle over telephone. He further deposed that thereafter, he searched the nearby area and found the dead body of his sister with her head lying separately away from the body. He stated to have identified the dead body to be that of his sister on the basis of the wearing apparels found on the decomposed dead body. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that bicycles of similar kinds and clothes of similar colour/design were available in the market. It is not in his testimony that he had identified the parts of the dead body to be that his sister from either any facial parts or from any distinctive marks of identification. As it is already established from the evidence of P.W. 1 that the body was found highly decomposed and dead body was not recognizable from facial and other parts, it will not be prudent to make any presumption as regards the identity of the parts of the dead body solely on the basis of the testimony of the informant (P.W. 2), who based his identification on the basis of the bicycle found inside the jungle and the wearing apparels found in the parts of the decomposed dead body. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence about the conditions of the wearing apparels, whether the same were torn or discoloured or soiled or otherwise, found in the parts of the dead body so recovered on 21.01.2012 and, thus, it is not possible to reach any conclusive opinion in that regard. 29. From the discussions made above, it has emerged that there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, all the relevant circumstances are to be conclusively established so as to complete the chain of circumstances which should unerringly establish the guilt of the accused and there shall not be any scope to hold that any other person, save and except the accused, is involved in the commission of the crime. In the light of the discussions as regards the evidence led by the prosecution in this case, we are unable to concur with the findings of the learned trial Court that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete by which one can unhesitantly arrive at the opinion that it is only the accused-appellant who is the perpetrator for the death of Padma Talukdar when it has not been established conclusively that the parts of the dead body found in the jungle were that of Padma Talukdar or there was murder of the person whose parts were found in the jungle or Padma Talukdar who had been found missing since 31.12.2011, had been murdered. In the aforesaid fact situation, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring whom the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the accused-appellant beyond all shadow of doubts. As a result, the accused-appellant has become entitled to the benefit of doubts. Similar is the case in respect of the charge under Section 201, I.P.C. Resultantly, extending the benefit of doubts to the accused appellant, we set aside the judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur by allowing this appeal. The accused-appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his custody is not required in connection with any other case. 30. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Ms. Purnima Baruah Bordoloi, learned Amicus Curiae, we hereby provide that she will be entitled to professional fee of Rs. 7500/-. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court legal Services Committee shall pay the fee to Ms. Purnima Baruah Bordoloi.