The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of eyewitness testimony, the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus', and the duty of the court to separate truth from embellishment in evidence.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - appellant being aggrieved by his conviction under Sections 341/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 30 days more for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC has appealed before this court.

2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 19th January, 2012 around 11:00 a.M., there was an altercation between the appellant and one Manik Hembram (PW 1) over drawing water for irrigation through a pump. Quarrel ensued between them. Thereafter, PW 1 left for his residence. Subsequently, on the fateful day i.e., 21st January, 2021 at 2:00 P.M. the appellant again threatened PW 1. In the evening around 05:45 P.M. while the deceased namely, Gangaram Hembram, father of PW 1 was going on a bicycle to Sangrampur market, appellant dragged him down from his bicycle near Kasundipara adibasi aleka Gaota club. Thereafter, the appellant and others mercilessly beat Gangaram with a hasuli. He expired at the spot. FIR was lodged by PW1 resulting in registration of Polba Police Station Case No.09 of 2012 dated 21.01.2012 under Sections 341/302/34 IPC against the appellant and unknown others. In course of investigation, the appellant was arrested and on his leading statement the weapon of assault namely, hasuli was recovered. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and eleven others. Charges were framed under Sections 341/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 26th august, 2019/28th august, 2019 while convicting and sentencing the appellant, as aforesaid, acquitted other accused persons of the charges levelled against them.

3. Mr. Dipayan Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues the genesis of the prosecution case has been substantially altered by the so-called eye witness PW 5 in court. While the witness stated that the appellant and other acquitted persons had assaulted the deceased conjointly, in court PW 5 attributed the assault with hasuli to the appellant only. Post-mortem doctor (PW 7) noted single penetrating wound on the stomach which improbabilises the prosecution case of conjoint assault. It is also argued that the seizure of hasuli is doubtful and the length of the weapon does not match the dimension of the injury as noted by the post-mortem doctor. Relying on the almanac (Exhibit-a) which was produced during trial, it is contended that the sun had set at 05:15 P.M. and therefore, light was insufficient for PW 5 to witness the incident. He accordingly, prayed for acquittal.

4. Ms. Shreyashee Biswas, learned advocate, appearing for the State, submits that the name of the appellant had featured in the FIR which was promptly lodged on the date of the incident, whereas names of the acquitted persons did not appear in the FIR. PW 5 who witnessed the incident and gave out the specific role played by the appellant who assaulted the deceased on the chest with a hasuli. Her version corroborates the injury found by the post-mortem doctor. Weapon of offence was seized in the presence of witnesses on the leading statement of the appellant. Hence, the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5. PW 5, Smt. Padma Hembram is the eyewitness to the incident. She stated that on the relevant date and time she saw Gangaram passing Kasundipara adibasi alek Gauta club riding a bicycle. appellant and others were sitting by the roadside. Suddenly they pulled down Gangaram from his bicycle. She saw the appellant continuously assault Gangaram with the help of a hasuli. as a result Gangaram died. Ot