IMPORTANT POINTS
1. When there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and same has been corroborated by medical evidence, non-recovery of weapon does not affect the prosecution case.
2. Mere abscondence cannot form the fulcrum of a guilty mind but it is a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and its value would always depend upon the circumstances of each case.
3. Every omission cannot take place of a material omission and therefore minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishment do not affect the core of prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.—Assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 2004 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.8.2003 and 13.8.2003 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2001 by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia, convicting the accused-respondent No. 1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for one year, has been reversed, the instant appeal has been preferred by special leave.

2. The factual score that needs to be exposited is that on 20.4.2001 about 8.25 p.m. Gnanendra Nath Biswas, PW8, the husband of the deceased, was lying on a cot in the bedroom with his wife Ashalata Biswas who was reading a “Panchali” and he was listening to the radio. A lamp was burning near the cot as the house did not have any electric light. All on a sudden a miscreant fired at the deceased Ashalata Biswas through the eastern window of the room as a result of which she sustained severe injuries. Hearing the scream of the husband, their nephew, Mritunjoy Biswas, PW1, along with others came inside and took Ashalata Biswas to the Krishnaganj Hospital. The doctors, after primary treatment, advised them to take her to Shaktinagar Hospital and, accordingly, PW1 along with Sujit Kumar Biswas, PW10 and one Lakshmi Biswas took her to Shaktinagar Hospital. Thereafter, PW1 went to Krishnaganj Police Station and lodged a written complaint, Ex.1, and returned home. On the basis of the complaint ASI Kohkan Chandra Roy, PW11, registered P.S. case No. 32 of 2001 dated 20.4.2001 under Section 326 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and, eventually, the case was endorsed to S.I. Anupam Chakraborty,PW13, for investigation.

3. On 21.4.2001 when the victim succumbed to his injuries, the case was converted to one under Section 302 of I.P.C. Accused Pranab, who was absconding, was arrested on 24.4.2001. The Investigating Officer sent the dead body for post mortem, examined the witnesses and after collecting all the evidence submitted the charge-sheet to the competent Court which in turn transmitted the case to the Court of Session for trial.

4. The plea of the accused was that he was innocent, and had been falsely implicated due to animosity.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge against the accused, examined 14 witnesses and brought number of documents on record. The main witnesses are Mritunjoy Biswas, PW1, the nephew of the deceased, Subhash Biswas, PW2, a witness to seizure, Kamal Krishna Biswas, PW3, who had deposed that at the time of occurrence the accused was not in the house, Dr. Ajit Kumar Biswas, PW5, who had conducted the post mortem, Shantiranjan Samadar, PW6, and Bishnu Pada Kritania, PW7, who had seen the accused running and on a query being made did not give any reply, Gnanendra Nath Biswas, PW8, the husband of the deceased and Anupam Chakraborty, PW13, the Investigating Officer. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.

6. After conclusion of the trial, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to hold that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, accordingly, convicted him and imposed the sentence as has been stated herein before.

7. On an appeal being preferred the High Court found certain flaws in the case of the prosecution and opined that the learned trial Judge had fallen into error in appreciation of evidence on record and, accordingly, came to hold that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. Being of this view it reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the accused.

8. Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the High Court has fallen into grave error by opining that the non-mentioning of the name of the accused in the FIR