JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, who has appeared on behalf of the State of Assam. None has appeared for the informant. 2. Assailing the judgment dated 19/03/2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in sessions case No. 103 (BGN)/2017 whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his wife and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default stipulation, the instant appeal has been preferred. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the accused /appellant has murdered his wife Fajila on the midnight of 15/11/2011 by cutting her neck with a sharp weapon. The father of the deceased Md. Forat Kha (PW-1) had lodged an ejahar before the In-charge of the Bidyapur Police Out Post on 16/11/2015 reporting that his daughter Fajila was married to the accused No.1 about 15 years ago and after the marriage, she gave birth to two children. At around 5 A.M. on that day, his nephew had informed him over phone that at about 12 midnight yesterday i.e. on 15/11/2015, the accused person, on the pretext of family dispute, has killed his daughter by cutting her neck with a sharp knife. Then he went to the place of occurrence and found his daughter dead. Her body was taken to Bidyapur Police Out Post. As such, a request had been made to take necessary action in the matter. 4. In the FIR, 5 (five) persons including the present appellant has been shown as accused persons. Upon receipt of information about the incident, a GD entry was made in the Bidyapur Police outpost. On 16/11/2015, Md. Forat Kha had lodged an FIR at the Bidyapur Outpost informing the incident and the ejahar was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Bongaigaon Police Station. Accordingly, Bongaigaon PS Case No. 929/2015 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC where-after, investigation had commenced. On conclusion of the usual investigation, the Investigation Officer (IO) had submitted charge sheet against the appellant Alom Miah under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife. Accordingly, Bongaigaon PS Case No. 929/2015 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC where-after, investigation had commenced. On conclusion of the usual investigation, the Investigation Officer (IO) had submitted charge sheet against the appellant Alom Miah under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his wife. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the IO, the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon had framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused person. However, since the accused had pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. 5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the murder charge, the prosecution side had examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Doctor (PW-5) who had conducted the post-mortem examination; the Circle Officer (PW-7) who had conducted inquest over the dead body, the Scientific Officer (PW-8) who had conducted forensic test of the seized knife and blood sample as well as the IO (PW9) who had conducted investigation in this case. Out of the remaining witnesses, PWs-3, 4 and 6 were the father, brother and sister-in-law of the accused person. 6. PW-1 Forat Khan is the father of the deceased and also the informant in this case. PW-1 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, a quarrel took place between the accused Alom Miah and Fajila over some domestic matter during the day time. The accused had killed Fajila by cutting her neck with a knife at night. At around 5 A.M. on the following day, his nephew Nur Uddin Ali had informed him over phone that accused Alom had killed Fajila by cutting her neck with a knife and that she had been taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital he saw the dead body of Fajila. The body was taken home and buried after the post-mortem examination was performed. This witness has also stated that he had gone to the Police Station and lodged the ejahar by putting his signature. One Advocate’s Clerk had written the ejahar. In his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that the deceased Fajila had 3 (three) children. The first had died and the son and daughter are still alive. The son of his daughter was about 4/5 years. One Advocate’s Clerk had written the ejahar. In his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that the deceased Fajila had 3 (three) children. The first had died and the son and daughter are still alive. The son of his daughter was about 4/5 years. PW-1 has also stated that he did not mention in the ejahar about the fact that Nur Uddin had informed him about the incident over Phone. This witness has also denied the suggestion coming from the defence side that on the night of the incident, dacoits had entered into the house of the accused and killed Fajila. 7. PW-2 Sri Hasan Ali Sarkar was the VDP Secretary at the relevant time. He has deposed before the Court that he knew accused Alom Miah and the incident took place about 2 years back. The house of the accused was situated near his house. At around 1-30/2 a.m. on the night of the incident, the wife of his uncle Azibar Seikh came to their house and called him by saying that some incident had taken place in their house. Then he went over to the house of Azibar Seikh and entered the house after pushing the door. Then he found that the wife of the accused Fajila Khatun was lying dead on the bed. There was blood on her body and the blanket. The mosquito net was hanging on the bed and the dead body was inside the net. As he felt dizziness, he came outside and informed the neighbours. On being informed, the Police came there. This witness has also stated that Azibor Seikh is the father of the accused. Police had made seizure by Ext. 2 after obtaining his signature and has stated that the seizure list Ext. 3 also contains his signature. According to the people, accused Alom Miah had killed his wife and he also presumed the same. 8. During his cross examination, this witness has stated that no seized materials was shown to him by the Police nor did they explain to him the reason for obtaining his signature. According to the PW-2, he was the first outsider who had reached the place of occurrence and at that time, the accused was also present there. 8. During his cross examination, this witness has stated that no seized materials was shown to him by the Police nor did they explain to him the reason for obtaining his signature. According to the PW-2, he was the first outsider who had reached the place of occurrence and at that time, the accused was also present there. This witness has, however, denied the suggestion made to the effect that dacoits had entered the house and finding no materials in the house, they killed the wife of the accused and left. This witness has further deposed that the two children of the accused were still living with him. 9. PW-3 Sri Ajibar Rahman is the father of the accused. The deceased Fajila was his daughter-in-law. This witness has deposed that the incident took place at about 12 in the midnight. On the night of the incident, the accused came and woke him up. He then went to their house and found Fajila was lying dead in a pool of blood over the bed inside their room. He then called neighbours, viz. Hasan (PW-2) and Asad Madani. Hasan is the VDP Secretary of their village. According to PW-3, some dacoits had entered the house of the accused and a commotion took place. He did not know how the incident had occurred. At that stage, this witness was declared as a hostile witness since he had retracted from his statement earlier recorded before the Police. During his cross examination by the prosecution side, the witness was confronted with his previous statement i.e. “Since a long time Alom has been creating disturbance in his house after consuming liquor, and also torturing his wife. On many occasions we settled their dispute over that matter. Around 8 p.m. last night the members of Alom’s family went to the bed after having meal. Last night Alom did not return home in drunken state. Around 12 midnight on hearing a scream raised by Ashmira, my wife and I went to the room of Alom. When we pushed the door, it got open. The light in the room of Alom was on. When I entered the room Alom got down from the bed and I saw a blood stained knife in his hand. Around 12 midnight on hearing a scream raised by Ashmira, my wife and I went to the room of Alom. When we pushed the door, it got open. The light in the room of Alom was on. When I entered the room Alom got down from the bed and I saw a blood stained knife in his hand. When I had cast my look at the bed I saw blood on all parts of the bed and Fajila lying there with cut injuries on her neck. My wife brought Ashmira from there. I called Fajila but did not receive any response from her. On being asked as to who killed Fajila, Alom replied that he himself killed Fajila. The witness has, however, denied having made the said statement before the IO. During his cross examination by the defence side, the witness has deposed that the accused had woken him up and told him that dacoits had killed his daughter-in-law. 10. PW-4 Sri Abdul Ajij Seikh is the younger brother of the accused. This witness has also deposed that around 12 at midnight on 15/11/2015, he had heard a commotion in the house of the accused. At that time he was present in his house. His elder brother Alom Miah (Accused) and his father (PW-3) had called him and told that dacoits had entered the house. Going there he found the dead body of his sister-in-law Fajila lying on the bed. Then he called Hasan Ali Sarkar (PW-2), who was the son of his father’s elder brother who lived near their house. Hasan Ali and he went to the Police Station and informed about the incident. Police came with them and took away the dead body for post-mortem examination. This witness has also deposed that seizure list Ext. 2 and 3 contains his signature and MExt. 1 is the knife with wooden handle and blood stain. Police had seized a blood stained knife vide Ext. 2 seizure list and some drops of blood of Fajila vide Ext. 3 seizure list. This witness has further stated that the dacoits had killed his sister-in-law Fajila. At this stage, this witness was also declared as hostile witness on the prayer of the prosecution as he retracted from his earlier statement recorded before the Police. 2 seizure list and some drops of blood of Fajila vide Ext. 3 seizure list. This witness has further stated that the dacoits had killed his sister-in-law Fajila. At this stage, this witness was also declared as hostile witness on the prayer of the prosecution as he retracted from his earlier statement recorded before the Police. During his cross examination by the prosecution side, PW-4 has denied all having stated before the Police that “Elder brother regularly quarreled with sister-in-law after consuming liquor. But yesterday elder brother did not take liquor. Around 8 p.m. the members of elder brother’s family took their meal and went to bed. Around 12 midnight when my father called me, my wife and I woke up. Then my father told me that Alom killed Fajila by hacking her neck. Immediately I went to the room of Alom and seeing the blood stained dead body of sister-in-law Fajila, I returned from there. I saw Alom by the side of the bed in that room. 11. PW-5 Dr. Mir Mahibur Rahman was the Medical and Health Officer on duty at the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital on 16/11/2015 when the dead body of the victim was brought there for post-mortem examination. PW-5 has deposed that there were sharp and clean cut deep incised wounds with beveling size around 10 x 10 cm below the thyroid cartilages of the neck involving both sides of the neck region present. Jugular vein, cardticle artery and trachea cut. Multiple abrasion in different sizes seen over the right forearm region. According to the PW-5, the death of the deceased was due to haemorrhagic shock resulting from the cut throat. The injury was ante mortem caused by sharp cut weapon and homicidal in nature. The approximate time since death was 6-12 hours. PW-5 has also proved the post-mortem report Ext. 4 by identifying his signature Ext. 4(1) as well as the signature of the Joint Director, Health Services, Bongaigaon as Ext. 4(2). 12. Smt. Sofura Begum is the wife of PW-4 and the sister-in-law of the accused. She was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 6. PW-6 has deposed that the incident occurred in the month of November, 2015 at around 1-30/2 a.m. On the day of the incident, her father-in-law and elder brother called her husband and told them that dacoits had entered. Smt. Sofura Begum is the wife of PW-4 and the sister-in-law of the accused. She was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 6. PW-6 has deposed that the incident occurred in the month of November, 2015 at around 1-30/2 a.m. On the day of the incident, her father-in-law and elder brother called her husband and told them that dacoits had entered. Then her husband and she woke up and coming to the room of the accused, saw the dead body of the wife of the accused Fajila lying on the bed inside the room. She did not know how Fajila died. This witness was also declared as a hostile witness on the prayer of the prosecution side since she had also retracted from her earlier statement recorded before the Police. During her cross examination by the prosecution side, the witness had denied having stated before the Police that “Alom regularly quarreled with Fajila after consuming liquor. Yesterday around 8 p.m. the members of Alom’s family took their meal and went to bed. Around 12 midnight my father-in-law told me that Alom killed Fajila by hacking her in the neck. Immediately my husband and I went to the room of Alom and saw the blood stained dead body of Fajila on the bed inside the room and I saw Alom standing by the side of the bed.” During her cross examination by the defence side, PW-6 has stated that she had heard that the dacoits had killed Fajila. 13. PW-7 Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma was the Circle Officer posted at Bongaigaon who had conducted the inquest over the dead body of Fajila. PW-7 has proved the inquest report Ext. 5 by identifying his signature therein. According to PW-7, the eyes of the deceased was half closed, mouth closed and deep cut injury mark was seen on the neck. Condition of the body was normal in appearance. 14. PW-8 Sri Sankar Ch. Rabha was working as Scientific Officer, Serology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam. This witness has deposed that on 21/11/2015, while he was on duty, he had received a parcel which was initially received by the Director of Forensic Science, Assam, sent from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Bongaigaon, in connection with Bongaigaon Police Station Case No. 929/2015 registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC. This witness has deposed that on 21/11/2015, while he was on duty, he had received a parcel which was initially received by the Director of Forensic Science, Assam, sent from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Bongaigaon, in connection with Bongaigaon Police Station Case No. 929/2015 registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC. PW-8 has deposed that on examination of the sample, which was one wooden handled knife containing suspected blood and one plastic bottle containing blood sample of deceased Fajila. The test result was found to be positive for human blood of Group “O”. 15. PW-9 Sri Debojit Sarma was the I.O. who had conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet in connection with the aforesaid Police case. PW-9 has deposed that on 16/11/2015, he was posted as the in-charge of the Bidyapur Police Outpost. On that day, at about 1 a.m., one Hasan Ali, the VDP Secretary of East Durgamari village had informed the Outpost that Alom Miah, son of Ajibor Rahman of the same village had murdered his wife. After receiving the information he had made GD entry No. 265 dated 16/11/2015 and along with his staff went to the place of occurrence. He found the dead body of Fajila Bibi in her bed room. After the occurrence, the accused fled away. PW-9 has deposed that he had drawn a sketch map, seized the knife which was used in committing the crime vide seizure list Ext. 2; had examined witnesses and recorded their statements; took the dead body to the Outpost for follow up action; apprehended the accused Alom Miah at Durgamari village and brought him to the Outpost for investigation; sent the dead body to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination after inquest was carried out over the dead body. The IO has further deposed that on 16/11/2015, Md. Forat Kha had lodged an FIR at the Bidyapur Outpost informing the incident and accordingly he had made GD entry No. 282 dated 16/11/2015 and forwarded the FIR to the Officer-in-Charge, Bongaigaon Police Station for registering a case. Accordingly, Bongaigaon PS Case No. 929/2015 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC and the matter was entrusted to him for investigation. On completion of investigation and after obtaining the FSL report, he had submitted charge sheet against accused Alom Miah under Section 302 of the IPC. Ext. Accordingly, Bongaigaon PS Case No. 929/2015 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC and the matter was entrusted to him for investigation. On completion of investigation and after obtaining the FSL report, he had submitted charge sheet against accused Alom Miah under Section 302 of the IPC. Ext. 8 was the charge sheet and Ext. 8(1) was his signature. 16. The IO has also stated as follows :- “Witness Abdul Ajij Sk. stated before me that “my brother used to take Alcohol regularly and made quarrel with his wife but on the day of incident he did not take alcohol and slept at 8.00 pm after taking dinner. On that day at 12.00 midnight my father was calling me and I and my wife awoke up. Then my father told us that Alom had murdered his wife by cutting her neck. Immediately we went to the room of the Alom Miah and noticing the dead body of Fajila Bibi with bleeding we returned there from. We also noticed Alom near the bed”. Witness Ajibor Rahman stated before me that “from many days Alom used to take alcohol and tortured his wife. We minimized their quarrel. On that day at about 8.00 pm the family of Alom took dinner and slept. But at about 12.00 midnight Ashmira shouted. After hearing her noise, I and my wife went before Alom’s room and on pressing the door, it was opened and light of the room was lighted. As soon as we entered into the room, Alom came from his bed with a blood stained knife. Immediately we noticed his bed and found that the neck of Fajila was cut. My wife took Asmira with her. We called Fajila but she did not respond. We asked Alom who murdered Fajila to which he replied that he murdered his wife.” Witness Safura Begum stated before me that “Alom used to take alcohol regularly and tortured his wife. On the day of incident at about 8.pp pm they took dinner and slept. On that day at about 12.00 midnight, father-in-law called used and came out. Then father-in-law told us that Alom had murdered his wife Fajila. Immediately I and my husband went to the room of Alom and saw the dead body of Fajila on her bed with bleeding and accused Alom was found in that room near the bed.” 17. On that day at about 12.00 midnight, father-in-law called used and came out. Then father-in-law told us that Alom had murdered his wife Fajila. Immediately I and my husband went to the room of Alom and saw the dead body of Fajila on her bed with bleeding and accused Alom was found in that room near the bed.” 17. During his cross examination, PW-9 had admitted that he did not collect the finger prints on the knife so as to match it with the finger prints of Alom Miah (accused) but had denied that on the day of occurrence, dacoits had entered the house of Alom Miah and murdered his wife. 18. After recording of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused Alom Miah was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, he had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. According to the accused, dacoits had entered his house and he had raised hue and cry but he is innocent. The defence side did not, however, adduce any evidence. 19. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge had found the accused guilty of committing the murder of his wife and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine. 20. Referring to the materials available on record, Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there are serious lapses and omissions in the investigation as well as the conduct of trial, which raises serious doubt as to the circumstances under which the victim had died. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that although the statement of Ashmira Khatun i.e. the minor daughter of the deceased was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.c. before the Magistrate, yet, the same has neither been brought on record nor has Ashmira Khatun been examined as witness and there is no explanation for not doing so. According to Mr. Mahmud, the prosecution has deliberately withheld the witness since the same would cause a dent to the prosecution case. By relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rabindra Kumar Paul @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India reported in (2011) 2 SCC 490 , Mr. According to Mr. Mahmud, the prosecution has deliberately withheld the witness since the same would cause a dent to the prosecution case. By relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rabindra Kumar Paul @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India reported in (2011) 2 SCC 490 , Mr. Mahmud has argued that there is no eye witness in this case and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce all witnesses whose statements had been recorded earlier. Failure to do so, according to the learned counsel, would have a fatal bearing in the outcome of the prosecution case. 21. It is also the submission of Mr. Mahmud that there are circumstances established from the evidence on record which would go in favour of the accused, namely, that the accused was seen to be present at home after the incident and that there is public perception about dacoity being the cause of the incident. As such, submits Mr. Mahmud, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by means of circumstantial evidence and the benefits of doubt must go in favour of the accused. In support of his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Mahmud has relied upon the following decisions : i) (2005) 11 SCC 600 –State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Mavjot Sandhu. ii) (2003) 12 SCC 377 -Mousam Singha Roy and others Vs. State of W.B. iii) (2002) 1 SCC 679 – Sudama Pandey and others Vs. State of Bihar. iv) 2002 (3) GLT 296 – Abul Hasem Vs. State of Assam. v) (1987) 2 GLR 11 – Sri Krishna Sonowal Vs. State of Assam. 22. Responding to the above, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, has submitted that the incident took place inside the house of the deceased and it has been firmly established by the medical evidence that the deceased had suffered homicidal death. There is nothing to indicate that any complaint was lodged for dacoity and the defence side has also not led any evidence to prove the said fact. Under the circumstances, there can be no doubt about the fact that it is none other than the accused who had committed the murder of his wife by cutting her neck and to that effect, the prosecution has fully established the charge by adducing circumstantial evidence. On such count, submits Ms. Under the circumstances, there can be no doubt about the fact that it is none other than the accused who had committed the murder of his wife by cutting her neck and to that effect, the prosecution has fully established the charge by adducing circumstantial evidence. On such count, submits Ms. Bhuyan, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. 23. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record. 24. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution side more particularly, that of PWs 1 and 2, it has been firmly established that the incident took place in the intervening night of 15/11/2015 and 16/11/2015 between 12-30 to 1 a.m. inside the house of the accused. PW-2 has categorically deposed that on being called by the father of the accused i.e. the PW-3, he went to the house of the accused and on entering the room, had found Fajila lying dead on the bed inside the mosquito net with blood on her body and blanket. He then informed the Police. PW-9 has also stated that the Police at the Bidyapur Outpost had received information from the PW-2 at 1 a.m. about the murder of the deceased in the house of the accused and after making a GD entry, had came to the place of occurrence. The testimony of PW-2 has remained unshakened. This witness has also clearly deposed that he was amongst the first person to reach the place of occurrence and he has categorically denied that there was any incident of dacoity in the house. From the evidence of PW-1, the date and time of occurrence and the manner in which the dead body of Fajila was found inside the house of the accused has come out. The evidence adduced by PWs 1 and 2 find due corroboration from the testimony of PW-9. 25. From the evidence of PW-5, it has also been established that the deceased had died a homicidal death. There is also sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased was present in his house at the time of occurrence and from the evidence of the PW-9, it has come out that he had later on fled the scene and was subsequently arrested by the Police from another place viz. Durgamari village. 26. There is also sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased was present in his house at the time of occurrence and from the evidence of the PW-9, it has come out that he had later on fled the scene and was subsequently arrested by the Police from another place viz. Durgamari village. 26. In so far as the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 6 are concerned, as mentioned above, they are the near relatives of the accused and during their deposition, they had evidently retracted from the earlier statement recorded by the Police under section 161 Cr.P.C. From the tenor of the evidence adduced by these three witnesses, it is apparent that there was an attempt to screen the actual culprit i.e. the accused in this case. With such objective, these witnesses had made an attempt to introduce the story of dacoity although none of them claimed to have seen anything. However, the story of dacoity has not found support from any other materials available on record. None of the neighbours including the PW-2 has mentioned about any dacoity although he was the first person to have reached the place after the incident, he has also not told the Police about any dacoity when he had first informed the Police Outpost immediately after the occurrence. The IO has also rejected the story of dacoity. No ejahar was lodged before the Police by the accused or family members reporting dacoity on the night of the incident. 27. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has merely stated that there was dacoity without giving any particulars of the incident and there is also no explanation as to why only the deceased was attacked by the dacoits by leaving aside the other members of the family. Taking note of such facts and circumstances appearing on the basis of materials available on record the learned Sessions Judge has also disbelieved the explanation furnished by the accused person and has held that the accused has failed to discharge his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act. 28. Upon evaluation of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge had found that the following circumstances stood fully established against the accused :- “(1) First information report (Et-7) based on information of PW-2 to the Police that accused had killed Fajila Bibi by cutting her neck with a knife. 28. Upon evaluation of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge had found that the following circumstances stood fully established against the accused :- “(1) First information report (Et-7) based on information of PW-2 to the Police that accused had killed Fajila Bibi by cutting her neck with a knife. (2) It was received at around 1 a.M. and PW 9 (Investigating Officer) reached the place of occurrence at about 1.25 A.M and found the dead body with cut injuries on neck lying on bed. (3) Accused was present when PW 2 reached there but subsequently before arrival of PW 9, he had fled away. (4) The presence of accused in the house at that time even proved by hostile witness PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. (5) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused. (6) Had dacoits come, they would have looted the belongings and not just killed the wife of the accused on the bed and go away. If it be so, there was no reason for the dacoits to leave the accused without causing any harm to him. (7) Had dacoits killed Fajila Bibi the first information report would have been like it only and there is no reason for PW 2 to suppress the fact of dacoity and to inform that the accused killed his wife (8) No independent witness stated of any such dacoity. PW 9 reached there immediately and had dacoity taken place, the scene of crime would have been different and the people gathered there would have narrated such fact to PW 9 (9) PW 3 is the father, PW-4 is the brother and PW 6 is the wife of the brother of the accused. They were declared hostile and their verison before the Investigating Officer was that the accused killed his wife. There can be no reason for PW 9 to falsely record their statement. (10) No satisfactory explanation of the death of his wife and/or false explanation by the accused. (11) Subsequent conduct of fleeing from the scene. (12) Medical evidence of death of Fajila due to cut injury on her neck. (13) Blood group of blood stain in the knife (M. Ext. 1) matched with the blood sample of deceased.” 29. (10) No satisfactory explanation of the death of his wife and/or false explanation by the accused. (11) Subsequent conduct of fleeing from the scene. (12) Medical evidence of death of Fajila due to cut injury on her neck. (13) Blood group of blood stain in the knife (M. Ext. 1) matched with the blood sample of deceased.” 29. After a careful analysis of the materials on record, we are also of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the fact that the incident took place on the night of 15/11/2015 inside the house of the deceased wherein the victim had suffered a homicidal death. The accused was present inside the house at that time but later on he had fled the scene. The medical as well as forensic evidence brought on record fully supports the prosecution case. Notwithstanding the above, the accused had failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how the incident took place. As such, we find ourselves in agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the accused by leading circumstantial evidence. The failure on the part of the accused to offer plausible explanation would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances which would stand proved against the accused person. 30. In so far as the decisions cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, it would be the duty of the prosecution to fully establish the case by proving all the links in the chain of circumstances so as to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also correct to say that if there are two views possible in a matter or when there is doubt as to the circumstance under which the incident had occurred, benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent evidence on record. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Mahmud would be of no assistance to him in the facts of this case. 31. In so far as the arguments advanced by Mr. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Mahmud would be of no assistance to him in the facts of this case. 31. In so far as the arguments advanced by Mr. Mahmud regarding non-examination of Ashmira Khatun is concerned, it is correct that the statement of this child recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. is not available on record nor has she been examined as a witness. Had the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of circumstances due to failure to examine a key witness who had seen the occurrence, than in such a case, failure to do so, in the given facts of the case, may have a fatal bearing on the prosecution case. 32. However, from a careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence. Each link in the chain of circumstances has been properly established. As such, failure on the part of the prosecution to examine Ashmira as a witness, in our opinion, would not have any fatal bearing on the prosecution case, in the facts and circumstances of this case. The decision relied upon by Mr. Mahmud is not an authority for the proposition that in each and every case, the prosecution would be bound to examine all the witnesses whose statements are recorded earlier, failing which it would vitiate the trial. 33. For the reasons stated herein above, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Registry to send back the LCR.