The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantive evidence and the inadmissibility of relying solely on previous statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for conviction.

True it is that a crime must not go unpunished, but in its anxiety to do justice, Court cannot admit inadmissible evidence nor can Court rely on unreliable evidence. This case reminds us of these golden principles of criminal jurisprudence.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order, dated 17.4.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sibsagar, in Sessions Case No. 15(S-C)/1996, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10007- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 (three) months.

3. The prosecution's case against the appellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows:

Deceased Binti Khetrapal was wife of the appellant, namely, BisheswarBaori @ Khetrapal and both of them were employees of Teok Tea Estate. On 16.5.95, at about 8 a.m., while deceased was going to work, she was given blows with a dao (M.Ext. 1) by the appellant seriously injuring her. Since it was the usual time for the employees of the Tea Estate to go for their work, some of the female workers of the garden, who, too, were proceeding towards their respective places of duty, witnessed the gruesome assault on Binti. On witnessing the occurrence, when the said female workers started screaming, male workers including the appellant's younger brother, Gauranga Khetrapal, reached the place of occurrence. A vehicle was arranged, but while the injured was being shifted to the hospital, she breathed her last. Gouranga Khetrapal aforementioned lodged a written ejahar (Ext.l) at Sonari Police Station and treating the same as first information report, Sonari P.S. Case No. 75.795 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant. Police held inquest over the said dead body and prepared inquest report (Ext. 9). Police also visited the place of occurrence and recorded statements of witnesses. Statements of some of the witnesses were also recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the said deadbody. On 19.5.95, the appellant surrendered at the said Police Station with a dao (M. Ext. 1), whereupon the appellant was arrested and weapon was seized vide seizure list (Ext.8). On completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

4. During trial, when a charge framed under Section 302 IPC was explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto.

5. In all, prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses including the Investigating Officer. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied that he had killed his wife, his case being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charge framed against him. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

6. The moot point, which falls for determination in the present appeal, is this: Whether the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court is justified on the basis of the evidence on record and the law relevant thereto?

7. We have carefully perused the record including the impugned judgment and order. We have heard Mr B.P. Kataky, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr P. Bora, learned Additional P.P., Assam.

8. Upon hearing of the appeal and on perusal of record, it transpires that PW-1 (Sri Gauranga Khetrapal), informant of the case, was not an eyewitness. PW-3 (Sri Dilip Gosain) is merely a scribe of the FIR, PW-2 (Smti Lakhi Pradhan), PW-4 (MnaGhatowar), PW-5 (Smti Sobha Bakti) and PW-6 (Jamuna Ghatowar) were all examined as alleged eyewitnesses, but except PW-2, other witnesses were declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution. PW-7 (Dr. B.C. Saikia) is the doctor, who performed autopsy, PW-8 (Sri L. Hazarika) is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of