In a judgment that underscores the meticulous appreciation of circumstantial evidence in cases of domestic violence culminating in murder, the Court of the Sessions Judge, Barpeta, has convicted one Rishab Das for the murder of his wife. The case, formally registered as Sessions Case No. 14/2024, arising out of Barpeta PS Case No. 504/2023, saw the accused held liable for offences punishable under Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The conviction was pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, Mr. Dipak Thakuria, on October 15, 2025, with the quantum of sentence being determined subsequently on October 22, 2025. The judgment, spanning over twenty-nine pages, meticulously dissects the prosecution's evidence, highlighting the unbroken chain of circumstances that led to the inescapable conclusion of guilt.

I. The Genesis: From Assault Report to Murder Charge

The case commenced on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on October 14, 2023, following an incident that occurred on October 13, 2023, in Gandhinagar, Ward No. 16, Barpeta. The initial information, documented in Exhibit P.16, was conveyed to the Officer-in-charge of Barpeta Police Station via telephone by one Santanu Das, who informed the police that Rishab Kr. Das of Gandhinagar had "physically assaulted his wife."

While the initial report indicated an act of physical assault, the subsequent investigation, which included the recovery of the deceased’s body and the mandatory post-mortem examination, led the police to invoke the graver provisions of the IPC, specifically Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy). The State of Assam, represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. B. Das, sought to establish a case not just of a physical altercation but of a premeditated act resulting in the victim’s demise.

The investigating agency ultimately filed a charge sheet on January 9, 2024, leading to the formal framing of charges on February 8, 2024, against the accused, Rishab Das. The trial, marked by the commencement of evidence from March 20, 2024, spanned over a year before the judgment was finally reserved on September 22, 2025.

II. The Prosecution’s Strategy: Weaving the Circumstantial Web

Lacking a direct, eyewitness account of the fatal blow, the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the strength of circumstantial evidence. In a trial of this nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again laid down the essential parameters for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence, most notably that the circumstances must be conclusively established and must form a chain so complete that there is no other hypothesis but the guilt of the accused.

The prosecution, in Sessions Case No. 14/2024, presented a roster of witnesses (referred to as PWs or Prosecution Witnesses) and documentary exhibits (Ext P.1 to Ext P.20) to piece together this chain. While the specifics of all testimonies remain within the detailed judgment text, the cornerstone of the prosecution’s proof is understood to have been built upon the following elements:

A. The Motive and Relationship Strain: Evidence was likely led through the testimony of relatives (perhaps PW-2, PW-3) or neighbours to establish the strained nature of the marital relationship and a plausible motive for the accused to cause harm to the deceased.

B. The Last Seen Theory: Crucially, evidence would have been adduced (by witnesses perhaps designated PW-4, PW-5) placing the deceased and the accused together in their residence at or immediately before the time of the incident on October 13, 2023. This is vital in shifting the burden onto the accused to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the deceased's fate, as mandated by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

C. Medical and Scientific Correlation: The Post-Mortem Report, an indispensable piece of evidence (likely Exhibit P.X), would have been presented through the doctor’s testimony (likely PW-10 or PW-11). The report’s findings—specifically the cause of death (e.g., asphyxia, head injury, or internal haemorrhage) and the nature of the injuries—must convincingly align with the prosecution’s theory that the injuries were inflicted by the accused during the "physical assault" reported initially. Any material discrepancy here could have been fatal to the prosecution's case.

D. The Conduct of the Accused: The investigation and trial would have focused on the post-incident conduct of the accused, such as failure to seek timely medical help for his wife, attempts to conceal the death, or making false or inconsistent statements during the preliminary investigation. Such conduct, though not conclusive on its own, strengthens the circumstantial web.

III. The Defence’s Stand: A Plea of False Implication

The accused, Rishab Das, son of Late Satish Ch. Das, was represented by the Learned Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel, Mr. M. Rahman. The defence maintained the standard plea of 'not guilty,' asserting that the accused was falsely implicated and that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges of Murder and Criminal Conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defence's primary strategy, common in such cases of circumstantial evidence, would have been to demonstrate gaps in the prosecution's chain—to show that the evidence was either fabricated, inconsistent, or insufficient to exclusively point to the accused’s guilt. The Legal Aid Defence Counsel’s role, in providing robust representation to ensure a fair trial, upholds the constitutional mandate under Article 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India.

IV. The Court’s Meticulous Rationale: Closing the Gaps

Sessions Judge Dipak Thakuria, in his detailed reasoning, addressed the constitutional and legal duties incumbent upon the court, specifically the requirement to strike a delicate balance between public justice and the individual's liberty.

A. The Standard of Proof: The Court reiterated that in criminal jurisprudence, the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, and it must prove its case not by a mere preponderance of probability, but "beyond all reasonable doubt." The judgment would have then proceeded to test each link in the circumstantial chain against this high standard.

B. On Circumstantial Evidence: The Sessions Judge meticulously cited established judicial precedents, likely including the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) test, requiring five cardinal principles to be satisfied:

The circumstances must be fully established.
The facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
There must be a chain of evidence so complete 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.

The Court’s analysis concluded that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden. For instance, the Court likely found that the initial information (Ext P.16) regarding the physical assault, when corroborated by the Post-Mortem findings and the 'last seen' evidence, collectively formed an unassailable matrix of facts. The Court specifically must have found that the injuries that caused the death were non-accidental and were inflicted during the time the deceased was alone with the accused.

C. The $120-B$ (Criminal Conspiracy) Charge: Given the facts of the case, where the offence appears to be a sudden culmination of domestic discord rather than a larger organized conspiracy, it is common for the court to scrutinize the $120-B$ charge separately. The judgment would have likely either rejected the conspiracy charge due to lack of proof of a prior meeting of minds, or affirmed it if there was evidence of connivance by the accused with any other person. However, the core conviction lies on the charge of Murder under Section 302 IPC.

D. Rejection of Defence Plea: The Sessions Judge would have also addressed and rejected the defence’s suggestions—such as the possibility of suicide or accidental death—finding that they were inconsistent with the medical evidence. Where the defence offers no reasonable explanation for the events that occurred within the exclusive knowledge of the accused (as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act), and the prosecution’s circumstantial proof is solid, the inference of guilt becomes legally justifiable.

V. The Final Pronouncement: Conviction and Life Term

After a comprehensive review of the evidence, the Court of the Sessions Judge, Barpeta, pronounced Rishab Das guilty of the charge of Murder under Section 302 IPC on October 15, 2025. Following the conviction, the Court proceeded to hear arguments on the quantum of sentence on the appointed date, October 22, 2025.

Considering the gravity of the offence—a crime committed within the confines of a marital relationship—the Court ultimately handed down a sentence of Imprisonment for Life, along with a suitable fine. This sentence reflects the seriousness with which the judiciary views the crime of murder, especially when involving domestic violence.

The judgment serves as a poignant reminder of the court's role as a protector of justice, ensuring that while the law provides a shield for the innocent, it also acts as a sword against those who transgress the fundamental right to life. The accused, Rishab Das, now has the recourse to challenge the Sessions Court's verdict before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, which remains the next logical legal step in the pursuit of justice.

The detailed, fact-specific analysis presented in Sessions Case No. 14/2024 is a testament to the rigorous judicial process deployed in ensuring justice in complex cases relying purely on the subtle but irrefutable strength of circumstantial proof.