The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on extrajudicial confession and the admissibility of evidence related to the recovery of the weapon of assault in determining the guilt of the accused.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27-1-2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 18(T)/2001 convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months, the appellant from jail has preferred this appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State of Assam.

3. The prosecution case centers around the homicidal death of Sutu Orang, resident of Ara Gaon, husband of the informant Maloti Orang. On 23-7-2000 she lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-charge, Talap Out-Post stating that at about 7.30 P.M. on the previous day i.e. 22-7-2000 her husband who had gone out of the house did not return and on the next day i.e. 23-7-2000 at about 5 A.M. she detected his dead body lying by the side of the PWD road in front of their house with cut injuries on his head, hand and neck etc. caused by sharp weapon. She mentioned about a quarrel between her deceased husband and his nephew Jugia Orang son of late Chokora Orang over a land dispute and that the latter (Jugia Orang had been trying to kill her husband with a dao. She therefore asserted that Jugia Orang had killed her husband.

4. On receipt of the FIR, Talap Police out post made a GD Entry and forwarded the case to the Officer-in-charge, Doom Dooma police station and thereafter Doom Dooma PS case No. 199/2000 under Section 302, IPC was registered. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC. The case being one triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, it was committed thereto and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tinsukia on 21 -5-2001 framed charge against him under the aforementioned provision of law. The charge having been explained to the accused appellant, he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses including the doctor who had performed the postmortem examination over the dead body and the Investigating Officer of the case. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. He, however, declined to adduce any evidence. His plea was one of total denial. The learned trial Court upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record held the accused appellant to be guilty of murder under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him as above.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the prosecution case being inherently improbable ought to have been discarded out right by the learned Court below. According to him, the evidence on record did not establish the culpability of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that having regard to the number of injuries sustained by the deceased, it is inconceivable that the incident could have gone unnoticed there being houses close to the place of occurrence. The deceased an able bodied man on being assaulted should have resisted and raised hue and cry. There being no evidence to the said effect, though the dead body was found near the residence, the learned Court below ought to have been rejected the prosecution case as unworthy of any credence. Mr. Sarmah was critical about the reliance placed by the learned trial Court on the so called extra judicial confession made by the accused appellant contending that the same was neither truth-worthy nor admissible in law. He further pleaded that the evidence regarding the recovery of dao as the weapon of assault from the house of the accused appellant ought not have been taken note of in view of material discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses to the said effect. Moreover, the dao claimed to have been seized not having been either produced or identified in Court during t