The voluntariness and truthfulness of a confessional statement, the requirement of corroboration, and the assessment of intention and culpability in criminal cases.

1. Heard Mr. P.C. Borpujari, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 75/2000, whereby the accused Appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, further R.I. for Anr. two months.

3. The unfortunate incident which led to the death of Rupnath Boro occurred on 10th May, 2000, Rupnath Boro, the deceased, has married young sister of the accused Rajen Boro and he was residing with his in-laws in an adjacent house. On the fateful day, a quarrel took place between the Appellant and the deceased, whereupon the accused is alleged to have stabbed the deceased with a fishing spear called 'Hathkali' or 'Kuchia'. As a result of the above injuries on the chest the deceased Rupnath Boro died at the spot. On FIR being lodged by the brother of the accused, the police registered a case and the accused Appellant himself surrendered before the police and he was sent for recording judicial confession which was recorded by the P.W. 6, Mr. H.D. Bhuyan, Judicial Magistrate.

4. In Sessions Case No. 75/2000 the Appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC and during trial, as many as, 8 witnesses were examined. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, further imprisonment for two months. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Kasta Boro, P.W. 1, is the informant of this case. He has deposed about the quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased and after the incident, on being informed, he came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead, whereupon, he lodged the FIR.

6. Smti. Mamani Boro, P.W. 2, is the wife of the deceased and she has also deposed about the death of her husband on the date of occurrence. P.W. 4, Smti. Pua Boro, is Anr. co-villager. It may be mentioned that all these three witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 were declared hostile by the prosecution during trial as they did not support the entire prosecution story. PWs 2 and 4 had even tried to make out a story that during the quarrel, the deceased fell down on a fence and sustained the fatal injuries.

7. So far the death of the deceased on the date of the occurrence as a result of the injuries sustained is concerned, the same is not disputed and it is supported by the medical evidence on record. P.W. 3 is Dr. Padma Singh Bordoloi, who held the autopsy over the dead bodies and found as follows:

External appearance- One middle aged male person with clotted blood in nose and mouth of average built. One entrance point of perforating injury above five fingers of right nipple 1/2" circular sharp cutting injury was seen.

Thorax

Walls, ribs and cartilages- NA.D. pleurae, larynx and trachere.

Right lung and left lung-Full of Blood clot in cavity of lung and semi clotted blood one 1/2" circular injury thorough the right lung perforating the diaphragm perforating the gastroesophageal junction.

In the opinion of the Doctor the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was due to severe blood loss caused by Hypovolemic shock.

8. As stated above, we find that the three prosecution witnesses, who are the members of the same family, have now tried to take a U turn by not supporting the prosecution to the hilt. They have admitted about the quarrel and the death of the deceased on the date of occurrence but P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have tried to make out a case, as if this is a case of accident. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution and their earlier statement was put to them. We also perused the enclosed report, Ext. 4, brought on record by the I.O. and the FIR altogether disclose a different story of assault. We, therefore, fin