JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Police received a complaint from prosecution witness (PW-) 2 dated September 27, 2011 on the basis of which, Goaltore Police Station FIR No. 89/11 dated September 27, 2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was initiated.

2. In the written complaint, PW-2 stated that, on September 27, 2011 in the morning at about 9 am when she along with her mother-in-law, the victim, were going to pluck the “Sal” leaves, she was little ahead. She suddenly heard the sound of shoes, turned back and saw the appellant attacking the victim with a sharp cutting weapon, striking on the throat with the sharp cutting weapon holding fist of hairs. She tried to stop the appellant. The appellant also tried to kill her. She then fled towards the village using alternate path and informed at home. After getting the news, some villagers came and saw the beheaded body of the victim lying inside the jungle.

3. Police conducted the investigations with regard to such FIR and submitted a charge sheet. Charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed as against the appellant on September 10, 2014. The appellant pleaded not guilty to such charge and claimed to be tried at the trial.

4. The case of the prosecution was that, the appellant at around 9 am at Hamargorah jungle under Goaltore police station, District-Paschim Medinipur attacked the victim with a sharp cutting weapon when she went there with her daughter-in-law to collect “Sal” leaves. The appellant chopped the head of the victim with the sharp cutting weapon and left the chopped off head by the side of a water body nearly 100 metres away from the place of attack. The appellant, therefore, committed murder of the victim.

5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and relied upon various documentary and material evidences.

6. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated. He wanted to adduce defence witness.

7. The defence examined DW-1. DW-1 is a neighbour of the appellant. In his evidence, he stated that, on the date of the incident, he was ploughing his land. The appellant was also ploughing his land at the material point of time. In cross-examination, he, however, stated that, he did not tell the police that, he was ploughing his land at the relevant time and that, the appellant was also doing so. He made that statement for the first time in Court.

8. By the impugned judgment of conviction dated August 26, 2020, the learned Trial Judge found the appellant to be guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence dated September 8, 2020, the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months.

9. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, there is no eyewitness to the incident. According to him, although, PW-2 claims herself to be an eye-witness, she did not see the entirety of the incident.

10. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, PW-1 and 7 were declared hostile by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-1 and 7 did not implicate the appellant.

11. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, other prosecution witnesses being PW-4,5,6,8 and 9 gave evidence which are of hearsay in nature. No conviction can or should be based upon their testimonies.

12. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, although the so-called murder weapon was seized, the same was not produced at the trial. Postmortem doctor was not shown the alleged murder weapon. He refers to the cross-examination of the first Investigating Officer in such respect. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution failed to establish the charge as against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

13. Learned advocate a