- (1.)THE appellant Nau Ram Das alongwith 4 others were tried for the offence under Section 302/365/34 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 28/98, on the allegation that on 7.6.1997, one Babita Das was kidnapped from her parents place and she was subsequently put to death. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court acquitted the four accused persons and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC with imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal.
(2.)THE prosecution version of the case is that, deceased Babita, aged about 18 years had a love affair with the present appellant Nanu Ram Das and there was some physical relationship, as a result of which Babita had conceived. On the evening of 7.6.1997, the co -accused Dilip Das (since acquitted) took Babita Das from her parents place and she was allegedly taken to the house of the appellant Nanu Ram Das and on the next day morning the dead body of Babita Das was found lying in a field. The post mortem was conducted by PW 1 Dr. Suresh Ch. Sharma, who had opined, that the death was due to strangulation and forceful twisting of neck. The doctor further went to the extent of stating that the strangulation was done by three persons. We can overlook this part of the evidence. The defence has not challenged the death of the deceased by strangulation. The trial Court also held that this is not a case of suicide and considering the oral and medical evidence on record the trial Court rightly held that this is a case of homicide.
(3.)IN the instant case there is no eyewitness to the occurrence that is none of the witnesses saw the deceased being killed. The appellant has been convicted on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances on which the trial court relied upon are :
2. THE accused had a love affair with the deceased. There was physical relationship and the deceased had conceived through the appellant.

3. THE deceased was taken to the house of the appellant on the night of the occurrence.

4. THE existence of dead body was informed by the appellant's side that is by the accused Madan Das (since acquitted) who is the brother of appellant Nanu Ram Das. That the accused appellant was absconding soon after the occurrence.

In so far the circumstance Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned ; there is some evidence to show that the deceased Babita Das was in love with the accused appellant. Nanu Ram Das and they had developed some physical relationship. Some letters exchanged between them were seized and all this supports the above. However, being in love with the deceased as both the accused and deceased were young persons is no ground or circumstance. The trial Court has placed much importance on the circumstances No. 3. On the basis of the evidence of the mother, wherein she has stated that on the evening of 7.6.1997 at about 7 P.M. Dilip Das (co -accused) had taken Babita Das from her parent's house to the house of Nanu Ram Das. The evidence of PW 5 merely proves the taking away of the deceased from her house by Dilip Das. Admittedly she did not follow Dilip Das to find out where he had taken the deceased. The trial Court has also relied on the alleged statement of the co -accused Dilip Das that he had taken Babita Das to the house of Nanu Ram Das. This being a hearsay statement of co -accused is not admissible in evidence. We, therefore, find that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Babita was taken to the house of Nanu Ram Day on the night of occurrence.