The admissibility of the confessional statement and its correlation with subsequent discoveries, as well as the corroborative nature of the evidence presented, were central legal points established in the judgment.

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated October 20, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2011 in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2011 sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and with fine of rupees ten thousand in default of payment of fine with rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years.

2. On the basis of a fardbayan of Vasudevan Nair, the PW1, before the police officer on March 09, 2011, Hut Bay Police Station case No. 34 of 2011 dated March 09, 2011 was started against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Investigation was conducted by the concerned police station and on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet No. 42/11 dated 23.04.2011 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was submitted against the accused appellant for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to face trial in open Court. The prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected and the appellant ultimately faced custody trial.

4. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair and after the cognizance was taken under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Port Blair for trial and disposal.

5. After hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the learned defence counsel and upon perusal of the case records the learned court below framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that on March 08, 2011 at about 08:00 pm at a place near a Nallah (ditch) by the side of paddy field of Tobius Tete in Ongi Tikrey under Hut Bay Police Station the appellant did commit murder intentionally and knowingly causing the death of Linus Indwar and his wife Kripa Bilung and also personally insulted and had given provocation to the victims intending that such provocation would cause the victims to break public peace. The content of the charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried.

6. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses to bring home charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code levelled against the accused/appellant. After completion of the evidence the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which he declined to adduce any witness in his defence.

7. The defence is one of denial of charge under Section 302 Code of Criminal Procedure which emerges from the trend of the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and so also from the statement made by the accused appellant.

8. Upon hearing the submission of prosecution and defence, the appellant was found guilty of the offence charged with and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after reflection in segregation, giving an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine or Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years by the impugned judgment which is in appeal before us.

9. Now, the point for decision is whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code levelled against the accused appellant beyond the reasonable doubt.

10. While assailing the order of conviction Mr. D Ilango, learned advocate submitted on behalf of the appellant that one Kannan who was the informant to the complaint ought to have been examined. He further submitted that the prosecution case was flawed for non-examination of Amrush, the brother of Kripa Bilung specially, in view of the suggestion that was put by the defence to Rohit (PW5) the son of the deceased that Amrush was responsible for murdering both the deceased due to a family feud arisi