IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel may be applicable in criminal cases when a party gives an open declaration that the witness is hostile, cross-examines him to destroy his entire evidence and relying on that declaration the other party does not put any question.
2. The statements of witnesses recorded by Police under section 162 Criminal Procedure Code during investigation cannot be used for the purpose of seeking corroboration or assurance for the testimony of the witness in Court.

JUDGMENT

Lahiri, C.J. (Actg)-Some trite questions like the scope of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. 1872 dealing with grant of permission to the party who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party, what is 'circumstantial evidence", its weight and value and other cognate and agnate matters are required to be reiterated in the appeal. In this context we recall a significant observation of Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes:

"It is sometimes more important to emphasise the obvious than to elucidate the obscure"

Indeed, it is so.

2. The appellant has appealed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.81 passed by Shri S.P. Rajkhowa, Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh convicting him u/s. 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.

3. On 1.4.77 at 7 p.m., P.W. 6, S. Rahman, the office-in-charge of Dibrugarh Police Station received a telephonic information from one Golap Barua that a rickshaw puller had been stabbed near the State Transport Office. The Officer made an entry in the station register and proceeded to the place of occurrence where he found the injured Bir Bahadur and sent him to the Medical College hospital for treatment. However, Bir Bahadur succumbed to the injuries on the following day. On 2.4.77 P.W. 6, S. Rahman was informed by one Bishnu Pandit, another rickshaw puller that on the previous day around 6.30 p m. he learnt from some boys that a rickshaw puller had been injured by some young persons. He went to the place and found the injured (Bir Bahadur) a rickshaw puller. On his query Bir Bahadur told that he bad been stabbed by a dagger but he could not recognise the assailant. Bishnu Pandit took the injured to Ganga Prasad, the owner of the rickshaw, which Bir Bahadur used to ply. The statement was put into writing and treated as the ejahar (Ext. 1). The police investigated the case, arrested the appellant and one Gajen. They were committed to the court of sessions to meet charges under section 302/34 I.P.C six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused pleaded not guilty.

4. Learned Judge held that out of the two injuries sustained by the deceased injury No. 1 as stated by the doctor, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and accordingly reached the conclusion that Bir Bahadur died at ante-mortem homicidal injury. Learned Judge held that the prosecution case depended on the sole testimony of P.W. 2, Banamali, who had resiled from his earlier statement and the prosecution "declared him hostile" and confronted him with the previous statement recorded by the police. Learned Judge also considered the fact that the witness made attempts to defend his version in court, which went against the prosecution by explaining away that the police had on its own recorded the statement and commandeered to confirm although it was untrue. Learned Judge observed:

" As this witness was found to be wavering, questions were put to him from the court for his clarifications".

Learned Judge observed that there was no legal bar to convict an accused upon the testimony of a hostile witness if corroborated by other reliable evidence. Learned Judge, therefore, searched for corroboration and held:

"In the instant case there is none to corroborate but there is a strong circumstance in that P.W. 4 had seen the accused persons together at about 2 P.M. in the market. Further, P.W. 2, Banamali's presence at the place if occurrence finds support in the statement of P.W. 3". (Emphasis added)

In short, learned Judge was in doubt as to whether the witness was reliable or not and accordingly sought for corroboration of his testimony implicating the accused and spotted that the statement of P.W. 4 Abdul Halder that the two accused were seen at or near the place of occurrence about 4 hours before the incident and the testimony of P.W. 3, Aratia Nath to the effect that he had seen P.W. 2, Banamali helping the injured just after the occurrence, corrobo