The quality of evidence is paramount in establishing guilt, and the relevance of public documents, such as the post-mortem report, can be crucial in criminal cases.

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the trial court in Sessions Trial Court No. 05(01) of 2012, holding the appellant guilty of committing murder of his wife.

2. Sieving the unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:-

In the evening of 30.06.1990 the victim and the accused came to the house of the de facto complainant to attend a 'shardh ceremony'. Initially, there was an altercation between the accused and his wife (victim) and thereafter they went back to their house. After a little while, the victim came back to her parents' house. The accused also came back to his in-laws' house thereafter and, in the presence of the family members of the victim, attacked her by a sword (kata) and took to his heels. The victim breathed her last instantaneously. Disclosing this illepisode, the de facto complainant lodged the F.I.R. saying that he also came to know that the accused himself surrendered before the police station and confessed his guilt.

3. Pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by P.W. 8 (Investigating Officer of this case) the accused faced the trial.

4. Observing the legal formalities, the learned trial court framed the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. (which was read over to the accused), recorded evidence of the prosecution witnesses, examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing arguments of both sides convicted the accused for having committed an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

5. Local witnesses, namely P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are not relevant so far as the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime is concerned. P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 were witnesses to the seizure-list prepared by the Investigating Officer. P.W. 7 was the officer-in-charge of the police station, who had prepared the formal F.I.R. and put his endorsement on the written complaint.

6. The principal witnesses in this case were P.W. 1 and the Investigating Officer.

7. At the very outset, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that except P.W. 1 there was no witness on whom the court could rely. He added that it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of P.W. 1 to found the conviction.

8. Let us have a look at the oral evidence of this witness. In his examination-in-chief, the complainant clearly spelt out the prosecution case. His testimony was challenged by the defence, while in the box, by suggesting to him that he had lost his eye-sight and could not have seen the alleged incident. In reply, he stated that he could see well with the help of his left eye, which was in order at the time. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the trial court accepting that such witness had seen the incident. This apart, in his evidence-in-chief, he specifically stated that at the time of sunset the accused came to his father in-law's house and attacked the victim with a hansua. There was no cross-examination, if the appellant came to the spot after the sunset or not. Therefore, if we look at his evidence in its entirety, we find there is no obscurity. This witness, when he deposed, was 70 years of age and he belongs to a tribal community. The place of occurrence is in the remotest part of rural Bengal. He is an unlettered and a rustic person. Therefore, some sort of latitude has to be given to him as far as his perception about the actual time of occurrence is concerned.

9. Learned Counsel also argued that in cross-examination this P.W. 1 stated that for the first time he came before the Court to narrate the incident. Referring to such part of his evidence, it was argued that the fact that such incident was not disclosed by this witness to anybody went to suggest that his evidence was not creditworthy. We are in respectful disagreement with him on two counts. First, the Investigating Officer usually does not examine the